Sh.Suresh Pal vs Commissioner Of Police & Ors
2009 Latest Caselaw 5048 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P. (C.) No.13605/2009

%                      Date of Decision: 07.12.2009

Sh.Suresh Pal                                              .... Petitioner

                       Through Mr.Vinay Kumar, Advocate

                                Versus

Commissioner of Police & Ors                           .... Respondents

                       Through Mr.Shoaib Haider, Advocate for the
                               respondent Nos.1 to 3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

1.   Whether reporters of Local papers may be                YES
     allowed to see the judgment?
2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                  NO
3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in              NO
     the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner has impugned the order dated 27th September,

2007 in O.A No.2503/2006, Constable Suresh Pal v. Commissioner of

Police and Anr dismissing his original application under Section 19 of

the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985, seeking quashing of order

dated 2nd December, 2003 ordering a regular departmental enquiry,

findings of enquiry officer dated 14th August, 2004 and order dated 22nd

November, 2004 passed by the disciplinary authority inflicting the

penalty of forfeiture of two years of service permanently and for two

years leading to reduction in pay and treating his period of suspension

as not spent on duty, and order dated 19th February, 2005 including

the name of the petitioner on the list of persons with doubtful integrity.

The charge against the petitioner was that he was drunk on

patrol duty when he was with ASI Girdhari Lal. When he was being

taken for medical checkup he escaped and, therefore, he could not be

medically examined.

The defense of the petitioner was that he had not escaped rather

he had gone for taking his son to the Doctor after taking permission to

leave from ASI Girdhari Lal.

The enquiry officer and disciplinary authority had considered the

statement of ASI Girdhari Lal with whom the petitioner was on patrol

duty, when he was under the influence of alcohol and relied on the

same as no malafide was imputed against Sh.Girdhari Lal. The enquiry

officer and the disciplinary authority also considered the statement of

Dr.Sunil Kumar who did not state that the petitioner had brought his

son to his clinic. The Tribunal considered the evidence relied on by the

enquiry officer, disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and

came to the conclusion that there was no infirmity or irregularity in the

findings of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. The

Tribunal has also held that in judicial review the Tribunal is not to re-

appreciate the evidence adduced in departmental enquiry unless there

are serious lapses in the report of the enquiry officer which would

negate the findings on the face of the record.

The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out such

serious lapses in the report of the enquiry officer which would negate

the findings on the face of the record. The statement of ASI Girdhari Lal

cannot be ignored nor could the petitioner contend that he had

obtained the permission to leave, as the permission could be granted by

the SHO and not by the ASI. The petitioner has also not been able to

establish that he had accompanied his son to the clinic of the doctor. In

the circumstances the inference that the petitioner had consumed

liquor and had escaped from police vehicle when he was taken to the

hospital for medical examination is founded upon preponderance of

probabilities and cannot be faulted.

The High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review is not to

re-appreciate the evidence. The Court does not interfere with factual

findings unless it suffers from an error of jurisdiction or from a breach

of natural justice or is vitiated by a manifest or apparent error of law.

In the present case none of the above mentioned conditions are

satisfied so as to warrant any interference by this Court with the order

passed by Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the petition of the

petitioner. There is no jurisdictional error or any manifest error. In the

circumstances the writ petition is without any merit and it is, therefore,

dismissed. Parties are, however, left to bear their own cost.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

DECEMBER 07, 2009                                      VIPIN SANGHI, J.
k/dp