Sh.Jiya Ram vs Union Of India & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 536 Del

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           W.P. (C.) No.243/2002

%                        Date of Decision: 01.02.2010

Sh.Jiya Ram                                         .... Petitioner
                      Through Mr.Sanjay Das and Mr.M.Ram Babu,
                              Advocates

                                 Versus

Union of India & Ors.                          .... Respondents
            Through       Mr.Aditya Madan, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

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.

*

1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 12th September, 2001 in

O.A No.1844/1999 titled Sh.Jiya Ram & Ors dismissing his original

application impugning the order of dismissal from service dated 20th

October, 1997 as Assistant Sub Inspector (Police) and dismissal of his

appeal by order dated 11th March, 1998 and revision petition by order

dated 5th March, 1999.

2. The allegations against the petitioner were that Sh.Nanhe Mal,

complainant complained against the petitioner and against Inspector

Mohan Chander, SI Net Ram and Ct.Ranbir Singh and Jatan Bir that

they forcibly picked up his son Subhash Chander along with his two

servants from their cold drink shop on the allegation that they were

storing spurious cold drinks. They had also picked up 70 crates of cold

drinks and a three wheeler scooter. Sh.Subhash Chander was

threatened with involving him in a false criminal case, if an amount of

Rs.50,000/- is not paid as illegal gratification.

3. Ultimately an amount of Rs.30,000/- was extorted from the

complainant and Subhash Chander and other servants were released,

however, out of 70 crates only 59 creates of cold drinks were returned.

Three wheeler scooter was also released after extorting the amount of

Rs.30,000/- from the complainant. A joint departmental enquiry was

held against the petitioner and others where the order of dismissal

dated 20th October, 1997 was passed against the petitioner who was

Sub Inspector of Police.

4. The Tribunal considered the order of the disciplinary authority,

appellate authority and the revisional authority as well as the evidence

adduced before the enquiry officer though it was noted that the role of

the Courts and Tribunal is limited to ascertain that the enquiry has

been conducted in accordance with law and there is no denial of

principles of natural justice, however, on account of the pleas raised by

the counsel for the petitioner that there was no evidence against the

petitioner, the Tribunal has considered the evidence also. The Tribunal

also noted that complainant in his statement before the authorities

recorded earlier had clearly named petitioner and co-delinquents as the

persons who had indulged in illegal acts and who had extorted

Rs.30,000/- and had also beaten Krishan Chander and other persons.

The version of Sh.Nanhe Mal was also found to be corroborated by his

son Vinod Kumar who had deposed about payment of money. Another

affidavit given by Sh.Nanhe Mal 19 years after the incident having

certain depositions contrary to what was stated during the enquiry and

before the officials, was not accepted and it was held that there was no

justification to infer that the inferences drawn by disciplinary authority

and the punishment imposed which was sustained by the appellate

authority and the revisional authority were liable to be differed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has very emphatically

contended that there was no evidence against the petitioner Sh.Jiya

Ram of his implication and culpability. We called for the original record

and obtained the photocopies of the statements recorded of Sh.Nanhe

Mal who was examined as PW.4; Sh.Subhash Chander, son of

Sh.Nanhe Mal was examined as PW.5; Sh.Krishan Pal, PW.6 who was a

rickshaw puller and was a helper to Sh.Subhash Chander and Sh.Vinod

Kumar son of Sh.Nanhe Mal.

6. This Court considered the original statements recorded before the

enquiry officer as in another case of a co-delinquent also, it was alleged

that the portion of the testimony of Sh.Nanhe Mal as recorded by the

enquiry officer in his report was at variance with the statement recorded

before him.

7. Though in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the Court does not have to go into the findings of

facts unless the findings are perverse or findings are based on no

evidence, however, on account of insistence of the learned counsel for

the petitioner that it is a case of no evidence, the evidence was perused

by this Court. Sh.Nanhe Mal complainant in his statement was

categorical that though he asked petitioner and others as to on what

ground 70 crates of cold drinks was picked up by them along with his

son Sh.Subhash Chander and his helper Sh.Krishan Pal, however, no

cogent answer was given rather he was told that he should come to

Seelampur Police Station and meet their officer who will explain

everything and will release his goods and his son and his helper. He

categorically stated that Ct.Krishan Pal in presence of the petitioner had

beaten the helper Ranbir with a stick (danda) and stated that money

will come because of this. The complainant though protested that he is

neither a thief nor a dacoit then why his man is being beaten up and

Rs.50,000/- demanded with the impunity. He was, however, told that

his persons will not be released and his son will be implicated in false

case unless the amount is paid. The allegation against the petitioner

and other personnel was also categorical that it will be better if they

give Rs.30,000/- to them instead of Rs.50,000/- instead of going to the

Court and seeking bail and spending amount on litigation. He

categorically stated that he asked his grandson Rakesh to go and bring

Rs.30,000/- from the trunk of his wife who brought Rs.30,000/- and

this amount was given by him to Net Ram, Jiya Ram (Petitioner), Ranbir

and Jatan Bir. In the cross examination the complainant identified all

the persons, however, he identified two persons incorrectly. While not

identifying correctly he did not say that they were not the persons who

were not present, however, he misdescribed two out of five persons. To

the specific question, question No.5 in the cross examination he

deposed to the effect as to who were the persons who had come to his

place and he again categorically identified that there were four persons

and named petitioner Jiya Ram along with others. He also stated that

earlier he did not know their names but later on he came to know their

names. In reply to question No.13 as to who had demanded the money,

he was specific in his reply that the amount was demanded by Jiya

Ram (petitioner) and Sh.Net Ram. He also stated in reply to question

No.15 that his helper Krishan Pal was beaten by Sh.-Jatan Bir. Again in

reply to question No.19 he very emphatically stated that when the

money was given it was in denominations of Rs.100/- and Rs.50/-

notes and the amount was handed over to the petitioner (Jiya Ram)

and Sh.Net Ram.

8. The statement of the complainant Sh.Nanhe Mal on material

aspects was corroborated by his son Vinod Kumar. Though the helper

Krishan Pal in the cross examination deposed that he was not beaten

by the police and all the 70 crates of campa cola was returned, on other

aspects the statement corroborated the version given by the

complainant.

9. Disciplinary and appellate authority have considered these

statements in detail. In the facts and circumstances, the contention of

the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no cogent evidence

against the petitioner is without any basis. The evidence as discussed

hereinabove, shall be sufficient to demonstrate the culpability of the

petitioner. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for any

relief on the ground that the findings of the enquiry officer and the

respondents are based on no evidence or are based on surmises or

conjectures or that the procedure was not followed.

10. No other ground has been raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioner impugning the order of the disciplinary authority and other

authorities imposing the punishment of dismissal from service.

Brazenness with which the petitioner in collusion with other police

officials violated the rules and extorted money from an innocent

businessman does not entitle them for any leniency. The petitioner was

entrusted the maintenance of law and order which he exploited

shamelessly for his personal ends and in the circumstances, there is no

scope to differ with the punishment awarded by the disciplinary

authority. The order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any such

illegality or irregularity so as to entail any interference by this Court in

exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

11. The writ petition is without any merit and it is therefore

dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

February 01, 2010                                MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'k'