Delhi High Court
Chhote Lal vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 4 March, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P. (C.) No.1310/2010
Date of Decision: 04.03.2010
Chhote Lal .... Petitioner
Through Dr. Kanwal Sapra, Advocate
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. .... Respondents
Through Ms. Anjum Javed and Mr. Anwar Faraz
Khan, Advocates
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 has challenged his order of dismissal dated 24th
October, 2007 and rejection of his appeal dated 8th February, 2008
pursuant to the departmental inquiry on the allegation that he had
demanded and accepted an amount of Rs. 45,000/- as consideration for
securing the appointment of another person in the Government job and
which were challenged by him in its original application No. 301/2009
titled as Chhote Lal Vs. Govt. of NCTD, which was dismissed by order
dated 12th February, 2009.
The petitioner was working as head constable in Delhi Police and
the departmental proceedings were initiated against him for demanding
and accepting an amount of Rs. 45,000/- for securing the appointment
of another person in a Govt. department.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The counsel for
the respondent has appeared on an advance notice. The learned
counsel for the petitioner has referred to testimonies of PW-2, PW-3,
PW-4 and PW-6 and has contended that the charges are not made out
against the petitioner on the basis of statement of the said witnesses.
The Tribunal has considered the testimonies of these witnesses and has
held that the evidence against the petitioner is in abundance to show
his guilt. In any case, in exercise of its jurisdiction, the Tribunal was
not to re-appreciate the entire evidence and only has to consider
whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance
with the Rules and Regulations and the adequate opportunity was given
to the petitioner and there had not been violation of principal of natural
justice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to establish
that it is a case of no evidence. The sufficiency of the evidence is not to
be gone into by this Court in any case. Perusing the statement of PW-1
to PW-6 it is apparent that there are no grounds to differ with the
findings of the Tribunal that the evidence against the petitioner is
sufficient and in abundance.
The learned counsel for the petitioner is also unable to show that
the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are based on surmises and
conjectures. Considering the testimonies of the witnesses as is reflected
from the inquiry report, the same cannot be rejected merely on the
ground that the persecution witnesses were related to the complainant.
The fact that the wife of the petitioner had returned only Rs. 17,000/-
has not been specifically denied and therefore, on the preponderance of
probabilities, it cannot be held that there sufficient evidence is lacking
against the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to make
out any perversity in the findings of the Disciplinary Authorities. In the
facts and circumstances and there are no grounds to rely on the
testimony of the defense witnesses and reject the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses.
The Tribunal has referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court
in Union of India Vs. Parmananda, 1989 (2) SCC 177; BC Chaturvedi
Vs. UOI, 1985 (6) SCC 743 and Chairman and Managing Director,
United Commercial Bank & ors. Vs. P.C. Kakkar, 2003(4) SCC 364 to
buttress the pleas that the Tribunal should not have interfered with the
penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authorities, if the conclusions of
the Inquiry Officers and the competent authority were based on
evidence. The Tribunal while exercising the power of judicial review
should not normally substitute its own conclusion of penalty and
impose penalty other than what is imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority.
The learned counsel for the petitioner had also contended that in
the facts and circumstances, departmental proceedings ought not to
have been initiated by the respondents as only the criminal case could
be registered against the petitioner. The plea of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is not sustainable as Rule 15 (2) of Delhi Police
(Punishment & Appeal) Rules empowers the authorities either to initiate
the departmental inquiry or to get a criminal case registered.
The learned counsel is unable to show any cogent ground why the
departmental proceedings could not be initiated against the petitioner
in the present facts and circumstances. For the foregoing reasons, we
do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal dated
12th February, 2009. There are no such illegalities or irregularities in
the order of the Tribunal which will require interference by this Court in
exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
The writ petition is without any merit and it is therefore
dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
March 04, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'rs'
