Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Others vs Hc Rohtas Singh
2010 Latest Caselaw 106 Del

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
*
+                                 W.P. (C.) No.152/2010

%                           Date of Decision: 12.01.2010

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others                         .... Petitioners
                      Through Mr.Manjit Singh, Advocate

                                       Versus

HC Rohtas Singh                                                   .... Respondent
                            Through Mr.Anil Singal, 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.

*

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 30th June,

2009 in OA No.94 of 2007 titled Shri Rohtas Singh v. Government of

NCT by which the order of disciplinary authority dated 17th February,

2001 and modified order dated 17th June, 2003 was set aside holding

that there was no evidence to punish the respondent and that the order

of the appellate authority dated 9th September, 2005 was a non-

speaking order in which the contentions raised by the respondent have

not been considered and thus setting aside the punishment imposed

upon the respondent.

The respondent as a Head Constable after an inquiry was

awarded punishment of forfeiture of three years approved service

permanently for a period of three years and not to earn increment of

pay during the period of reduction by order dated 17th February, 2001.

The allegation against the respondent was that he along with Constable

Shyam Sunder, though were posted at Lampur Chowk, however, they

were found conducting unauthorized checking at Vishal Bagh, i.e away

from their actual place of duty and the respondent had also realized

compounding amounts of Rs.800/- from eight challans in violation of

instructions of senior officers and that he had made incorrect entries in

Challan No.L-243766 of two-wheeler scooter and he also realized

compounding amount of Rs.100/- in challan No.L-150394 on 7th

December, 1999 and challan No.L-244562 on 10th December,1999 but

deposited these amounts in Circle Office on 13th December, 1999.

The disciplinary authority had relied on the testimony of PW7, the

driver of the tempo, from whom the alleged amount of Rs.100/- was

illegally demanded by Constable Shyam Sunder and accepted by him.

The said witness, however, denied in his statement that any such

transaction had taken place and that any demand was made to him and

the amount was paid by him. The complainant rather deposed that no

one stopped his tempo and no money was demanded.

Learned counsel for the petitioner had tried to rely on the

statement of the complainant recorded before the alleged preliminary

inquiry, however, in view of the fact that the statement was made by the

said witness before the inquiry officer before whom the respondent was

also allowed to cross examine the said witness, therefore the statement

made before the PRG Team could not be relied on and could not be the

basis for awarding punishment to the respondent.

The Tribunal has not accepted the testimony of PW7 as nothing

was deposed by him against Constable Shyam Sunder and the cross-

examination done by the inquiry officer had been held to be contrary to

Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. Learned counsel for the

petitioner has contended that Rule 16(v) permits the inquiry officer to

also frame questions which he could put to the witnesses to clear

ambiguity or to test their veracity. The Tribunal has noted that in view

of the specific statement of PW7/complainant, neither there was any

ambiguity nor there was any occasion to test the veracity of the witness

and in the circumstances the questions put by the inquiry officer were

nothing but the cross-examination which is not permissible under Rule

16(v) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to justify, in the facts

and circumstances, that the inquiry officer was entitled to cross-

examine the witness, PW7. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also

unable to justify introduction of PW5, Constable Rakesh Kumar, who

was not in the list of witnesses. In case the testimonies of PW7 and

PW5 is not considered, there is no evidence against the respondent

which will entail any penal consequences against him.

In the circumstances, the inference of the Tribunal that the order

of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are not based

on cogent evidence against the respondent cannot be faulted on any of

the grounds as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The writ petition, in the facts and circumstances, is without any

merit and it is, therefore, dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

January 12, 2010                                 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'anb/Dev'