Si Sobhan Baraik vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 160 Del

*                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                                W.P. (C.) No.170/2010

%                            Date of Decision: 13.01.2010

SI Sobhan Baraik                                             .... Petitioner
                             Through Mr.Shyam Babu, Advocate.

                                      Versus

Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.                    .... Respondents
          Through             Ms.Jyoti Singh, 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 a Sub Inspector of Delhi Police has been dismissed

from service after enquiry on the allegation that in a case of rape, the

petitioner demanded Rs.50,000/- from the accused of the rape to favor

him and also indulged in unwarranted conversation with the daughter

of the accused, Rashmi and her grandfather. The incident of the

demand of Rs.50,000/- from the daughter of the accused was also

recorded by media "Aaj Tak" and on realizing that his illegal demand

and unwarranted conversation was being recorded, the petitioner had

run away from the scene leaving his vehicle at the site.

The punishment order dated 3rd April, 2006 which was upheld in

appeal by order dated 11th August, 2006 was challenged by the

petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench

in O.A No.2066/2006 titled SI Sobhan Baraik v. Government of NCT of

Delhi which original application was also dismissed by the Tribunal by

order dated 18th February, 2009 which is challenged by the petitioner in

the present writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has very emphatically

contended that the original CD and the recording equipment was not

produced during the enquiry and, therefore, no reliance can be placed

on the copy of the compact disc produced against the petitioner.

Mr.Shyam Babu Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has also

asserted that the alleged unwarranted conversation was with the

accused's daughter and her grandfather, however, the grandfather was

not produced and the daughter has not stated anything about any

demand made by the petitioner and so there was no evidence against

the petitioner. In the circumstances it is contented that there is no

reliable evidence against the petitioner.

The petitioner has also asserted that the copy of the preliminary

report relied on by the enquiry officer which was produced by PW5 was

not given to him and thus the principle of natural justice has been

violated and the findings against him cannot be substantiated nor on

the basis of the report of the enquiry, punishment of dismissal from the

service can be awarded.

The Tribunal has noted that since the Inspector of CBI who was

to depose about the preliminary enquiry did not do so and, therefore,

the preliminary enquiry report is not relied upon. If the preliminary

enquiry report was not relied upon, a copy of which was allegedly not

supplied to the petitioner, the plea that the principle of natural justice

has been violated and the petitioner has suffered the prejudice cannot

be accepted. Consequently, on this ground the petitioner cannot

succeed in getting the enquiry proceedings declared as bad being in

violation to the principles of natural justice.

The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the

original media on which the incident was recorded was not produced

during the enquiry, therefore, the copies produced during the enquiry

also cannot be relied on, cannot be accepted in the facts and

circumstances. Strict principles of the Evidence Act are not to be

applied while assessing the evidentiary value of the documents

produced before the enquiry officer. PW10, Principal Correspondent of

"Aaj Tak" was examined. He deposed that the petitioner had come on

the scooter and had demanded money from the daughter/children of

the accused of rape and he had also threatened them. In view of the

categorical deposition of the correspondent, the copy of the media on

which the incident was recorded cannot be ignored on the ground that

the original media on which the incident was recorded had not been

produced. It has also been categorically disclosed that the original

media with the recording of the incident of demand of money had been

destroyed. In the circumstances, the copy which had been produced

also by "Aaj Tak" in view of the statement of PW.10, Principal

Correspondent will have evidentiary value as secondary evidence and

cannot be rejected.

The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in absence

of the preliminary evidence regarding recording of the incident there is

no evidence in support of the charge against the petitioner also cannot

be accepted. The daughter namely Rashmi, of the accused of the rape

Sh.Baljit Singh has categorically deposed about the incident. Not using

the word "demand" by the daughter Rashmi in the facts and

circumstances does not negate the charge of unwarranted conversation

with her with a view to demand Rs.50,000/- from them. The Tribunal

has also relied on and has given emphasis to the fact that the petitioner

ran away from the scene after realizing that his illegal demand and

conversation was being recorded, even leaving behind his own scooter.

Though the Tribunal was not to interfere with the findings of facts

before the enquiry officer and appellate authority nor had to re-

appreciate the evidence of the parties during the enquiry proceedings,

however, the Tribunal has reconsidered the evidence and has inferred

that the guilt of the petitioner has been established. The findings of the

enquiry officer are based on evidence and the case of the petitioner is of

not of no evidence against him and consequently imposition of

punishment of dismissal imposed by disciplinary authority and

dismissal of appeal later on cannot be faulted.

The Tribunal has also noted that daughter of Baljit Singh,

Rashmi had clearly deposed that the compact disc was obtained by her

from "Aaj Tak" channel and that the petitioner has failed to prove any

deficiency or defect in it or give proof in support of his own version.

Even the enquiry officer had noticed and considered all likelihood of

editing and dubbing of the compact disc and relied on the recorded

version. The previous conduct of the petitioner was also noticed as he

had been punished six times with minor punishments and twice major

penalties had been imposed upon the petitioner. In the circumstances

the inference of guilt of the petitioner cannot be interfered in the facts

and circumstances of this case.

In the totality of facts and circumstances we do not find any

illegality or such irregularity in the order of the Tribunal which would

entail interference by us against the said order in exercise of

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is without any merit and it is, therefore,

dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

JANUARY 13, 2010                             MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
„k‟