Delhi High Court
Sub-Inspector Harish Chander vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Others on 9 May, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
$~31.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3037/2011
Date of order: 9th May, 2011
SUB-INSPECTOR HARISH CHANDER ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
SANJIV KHANNA, J.:
The petitioner was awarded punishment of withholding of
next annual increment for a period of one year without
cumulative effect vide order dated 10th November, 2005, which
was confirmed in appeal vide order dated 23rd November, 2007.
By the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (tribunal, for short) dated 22nd
December, 2010 in O.A. No. 2239/2008, the original application
filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The only contention
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3037/2011 Page 1 of 5
urged by the petitioner is that the disciplinary authority, appellate
authority and the tribunal have failed to appreciate the evidence
on record in proper perspective, specially the defence evidence.
It is submitted that the authorities did not take into consideration
evidence in support of the petitioner and have passed a one-
sided order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Union of India and
Others versus G. Krishna, 2005 (3) ATJ 359.
2. We have gone through the inquiry report and the findings
recorded therein. The present case is not one where evidence
has been ignored or not given due credence, but where on the
principle of preponderance of probabilities the Inquiry Officer
and the appellate authorities have recorded their findings
against the petitioner. Some of the evidence/statements have
not been accepted or given credibility by giving valid and
germane reasons. Tribunal has also examined the said aspect.
Statements of some of the witnesses have been taken with a
pinch of salt as they were interested witnesses. These include
statements of the defence witnesses, including other police
personnel and one Prabhu Dayal. The Inquiry Officer,
departmental authorities and the tribunal have given their
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3037/2011 Page 2 of 5
reasons why they were not inclined to accept and rely on the
said statements.
3. Facts on record in brief may be noticed. There were inter
se disputes between the two partners, namely, Prabhu Dayal
and Bhim Singh. Gaurav Rathore, son of Bhim Singh, it is
alleged was taken to Police Station Bara Hindu Rao at the
behest of his uncle by the petitioner and some other policemen
on 15th October, 2004. He was mercilessly beaten up by putting
a piece of cloth in his mouth and inflicted injuries all over his
body. Chili powder was inserted in his anus due to which he
became unconscious. At about 3.30 a.m. on 16th October, 2004
Gaurav Rathore was brought back to his house in an
unconscious state. On 17th October, 2004, Vandana Rathore
wife of Gaurav Rathore took her husband to Bara Hindu Rao
Hospital along with some relatives and he was medically
examined and MLC was prepared. Gaurav Rathore had
appeared as PW-6 and had reiterated the said facts. PW-7,
Vandana Rathore, wife of Gaurav Rathore, had also appeared
and had reiterated the facts that her husband was taken to the
police station and he came back on 16th October, 2004 at 3 a.m.
at night and at that time his condition was very bad. He was
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3037/2011 Page 3 of 5
taken to the hospital on 17th October, 2004 and MLC was
prepared. She had also stated that she had made a written
complaint of two pages on 17th October, 2004 giving full details.
4. The contention of the petitioner why Gaurav Rathore was
not admitted to the hospital on 16th October, 2004 was
considered and has been dealt with. PW-7, Vandana Rathore,
had explained that her father had suffered brain hemorrhage in
the morning and she had not made any police complaint earlier
but once the condition of Gaurav Rathore worsened, he was
taken to the hospital. She was also afraid that her husband may
be implicated in a false case. MLC of Gaurav Rathore prepared
on 17th October, 2004 was brought on record and corroborates
the allegation of torture as Gaurav Rathore was having bruises,
including redding of anal mucosa. The MLC records that the
patient had given history of assault.
5. The judgment in G. Krishna (supra) is not applicable to
the facts of the present case as the departmental authorities
have considered the evidence and material on record and have
arrived at their findings after giving cogent and germane
reasons. The orders passed cannot be categorized as perverse
or based on no evidence. The authorities have considered the
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3037/2011 Page 4 of 5
entire evidence and material on record and have given their
findings. Perhaps the petitioner has been let of with a lenient
punishment. As a writ Court exercising power of judicial review,
no ground for interference is made out. There is no error in the
decision making process.
The writ petition is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
MAY 09, 2011
VKR
