Delhi High Court
Ex. Constable Shri Bhagwan vs Union Of India And Others on 27 October, 2009
Author: Madan B. Lokur
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No. of 2093/2001
% Decided on: October 27, 2009
Ex. Constable Shri Bhagwan
S/o Shri Munshi Ram
Aged about 35 years
Previously employed in Delhi Police
R/o 29/16, Rajender Nagar
Near Telephone Exchange
Sonipat, Haryana. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Shyam Babu, Adv.
versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs
North Block
New Delhi.
2. Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
3. Addl. Commissioner of Police
Police Control Room
Police Headquarters
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
4. Deputy Commissioner of Police
Police Control Room
Police Headquarters
I.P. Estate, New Delhi. ..... Respondents
WP (C) Nos. 2093 & 2094/2001 Page 1 of 6
Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Adv.
AND
2. Writ Petition (Civil) No. of 2094/2001
Ex. Head Constable Manjeet Singh
S/o Shri Sher Singh
Aged about 37 years
Previously employed in Head Constable
in Delhi Police No. 1380/PCR
R/o 42, Vikas Vihar
Chander Vihar near Virdi Property Dealer
Nilothi Extn.
Nangloi, New Delhi. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Shyam Babu, Adv.
versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs
North Block
New Delhi.
2. Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
3. Addl. Commissioner of Police
Police Control Room
Police Headquarters
I.P. Estate, New Delhi. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Adv.
WP (C) Nos. 2093 & 2094/2001 Page 2 of 6
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
MADAN B. LOKUR, J. (ORAL)
1. The Petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 13 th November,
2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in
OA Nos. 739/1998 and 1896/1998.
2. One Vinod Kumar made a complaint on 21st/22nd February, 1995
to the effect that he was stopped by a PCR van and illegal gratification
was demanded from him by the occupants of the PCR van, that is,
Constable Shri Bhagwan and Head Constable Manjeet Singh.
3. On the basis of the complaint made by Vinod Kumar, disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the two officials.
4. When Vinod Kumar entered the witness box, he denied the
incident inasmuch as he stated that he was asked to write that complaint
by some officer (Inspector Balwant Singh). He could not identify Head
Constable Manjeet Singh or Constable Shri Bhagwan who were present
during the enquiry proceedings. Vinod Kumar was unable to give
material particulars of the incident but notwithstanding this, the Enquiry
Officer held that the charge against the two officials was proved because
they were unable to refute the allegation made against them.
5. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the report of the Enquiry
Officer and the Petitioners were dismissed from service. A departmental
appeal did not yield any fruitful result and consequently, the Petitioners
approached the Tribunal for relief.
6. The Tribunal dismissed the original applications filed by the
Petitioners holding that the complaint of Vinod Kumar was good
enough to nail the Petitioners guilt.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that in the absence of
any evidence against his clients, there was no warrant for the
departmental authorities to find them guilty nor was there any reason for
the Tribunal to decide against the Petitioners.
8. Learned counsel for the Respondents sought to support the order
of the Tribunal by contending that Vinod Kumar had been won over.
9. However, we find that there is a reference to another police
officer and that is Inspector Balwant Singh to whom the complaint was
made by Vinod Kumar. In his deposition as PW-2 Balwant Singh fully
supported the incident in terms of the complaint made by Vinod Kumar.
10. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the evidence of
Balwant Singh cannot be taken into consideration by us as it has not
been discussed by the Tribunal. He says that it would not be appropriate
for us to look into this evidence without considering the view expressed
by the Tribunal on this and the remaining evidence on record.
11. In our opinion, learned counsel is right in his submission because
the entire evidence is to be seen to determine whether it is a case of no
evidence and if it is so then, of course, the case made out against the
Petitioners by the Respondents cannot stand. However, if there is some
evidence on record, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and
draw a conclusion different from that drawn by the departmental
authorities or the Tribunal unless the conclusion arrived at is perverse.
12. In this case, the entirety of the evidence on record has not been
taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Therefore, we set aside the
impugned order and remand the case for reconsideration of the issues on
merits.
13. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 19th
November, 2009 for directions.
14. The writ petitions stand disposed of.
MADAN B. LOKUR, J
OCTOBER 27, 2009 MUKTA GUPTA, J
vk
