Delhi High Court
Constable Manjeet Singh vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 9 December, 2009
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.13731/2009
% Date of Decision: 09.12.2009
Constable Manjeet Singh .... Petitioner
Through Mr.Lalta Prasad, Advocate
Versus
Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors .... Respondents
Through Ms.Jyoti Singh with Mr.Amandeep
Joshi, Advocates.
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 challenged the order dated 3rd November, 2008
in O.A No.304/2007, Ct.Dilbagh Singh & Anr dismissing the original
application against the order dated 19th May, 2004 imposing
punishment of stoppage of two increments temporarily by order dated
30th May, 2005 and the appellate order dated 4th January, 2007
whereby the departmental appeal was also dismissed.
Misconduct was alleged against the petitioner in approaching a
printing press of Sh.Pramod Kumar Sharma at 7/352, Pandav Road,
Subhash Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi and demanding a sum of Rs.1 lakh for
not taking any action against him and others on the alleged information
that he was indulging in printing of duplicate/fake labels.
An enquiry was conducted against the petitioner where seven
witnesses were examined by the prosecution and two witnesses were
examined on behalf of petitioner. Major punishment of stoppage of two
increments was awarded to the petitioner.
The petitioner had mainly challenged the order of disciplinary
authority and appellate authority on the grounds that prior approval of
Additional Commissioner of Police was not taken in terms of Rule 15(2)
of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980; the testimonies of
the witnesses examined by the petitioner were not discussed and
considered by the authorities, and; Sh.Pramod Kumar Sharma,
complainant, material witness had not been examined.
The Tribunal has considered the pleas and contentions of the
petitioner and noted that the approval of Additional Commissioner of
Police had been given, who had with application of mind opted for
initiating a departmental enquiry. It had also considered the
ramification of non examining Pramod Kumar Sharma, the complainant
since it was not denied by the petitioner that he had gone to Pandav
Nagar for ulterior motives. Therefore, it was held that non examination
of Sh.Pramod Kumar Sharma was not fatal. The version of the
petitioner that he had gone to Pandav Nagar to apprehend an accused
in a murder case was not believed, as the petitioner had not made
entries in the daily diary.
This cannot be disputed that judicial review is concerned with the
examination of decision making process and not with the re-
appreciation of evidence. The testimonies of the petitioner's witnesses
have also been considered and it has been inferred that they will not
make material difference to the inferences drawn by the authorities and
consequently the petition was dismissed holding that there was no error
or illegality in the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate
authority.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the same pleas
which were raised before the Tribunal. However, the learned counsel
has not, in the facts and circumstances, been able to make out any
ground which will entail any interference by this Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the
order dated 3rd November, 2008 in O.A No.304/2007, Constable
Dilbagh Singh and Anr v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
In the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is without any
merit and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is, therefore,
dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
DECEMBER 09, 2009 VIPIN SANGHI, J.
k/dp
