Sub-Inspector Nafe Singh vs Commissioner Of Police & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 166 Del

$~16
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                            Judgment delivered on 09.01.2012
+      W.P.(C) 126/2012
SUB-INSPECTOR NAFE SINGH                                       ....     Petitioner

                                   versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.                                  ....     Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner    :     Mr Virender Goswami, Ms Soni Singh & Mr Sankalp Sharma
For the Respondents   :     Ms Zubeda Begum

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

BADAR DURREZ AHMED (ORAL)

1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 15.03.2011 passed by

the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in OA No.

2850/2009. The petitioner had filed the said OA being aggrieved by the major

penalty awarded to the petitioner of withholding of future increment for a period of

two years with cumulative effect. The said major penalty was awarded consequent

upon a departmental enquiry.

2. The case against the petitioner has been set out in paragraph 2 of the

impugned order and the same reads as under:-

"2. The applicant, Sub Inspector in Delhi Police, has been proceeded against in the departmental inquiry on the following summary of allegations:-

"It has been alleged that SI Nafe Singh No.D/249 while posted at Police Station Defence Colony was

working as Division Officer. In his area of division at South Extn.-Part II Market parking area was allotted to one Sh. Jain Kishan S/o. Sh. Sunder Das, R/o. A-172, New Layal Pur Colony, Loni, Gaziabad by M.C.D. He appointed Sh. Manoj Kumar as manager of this parking to run it. SI Nafe Singh started harassing his men and demanded money. They did not meet his demand. SI Nafe Singh allowed unauthorized persons namely Sh. Manish & others to facilitate vehicle parking unauthorizedly in the allotted area to Sh. Jai Kishan by M.C.D. by issuing plastic tokens to the vehicle owners causing loss to the authorized M.C.D. contractor. It shows malafide intention of the S.I. of using illegal means for his personal gains.

The above act on the part of SI Nafe Singh amounts to gross misconduct & dereliction of is official duties for which he is liable to be dealt departmentally under the provision of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules.""

3. Since the petitioner had denied these allegations, the Inquiry Officer

proceeded with the enquiry and in the course of which five prosecution witnesses

were examined. Thereafter, charges were framed against the petitioner on the same

lines as indicated above. The petitioner also examined four witnesses in his

defence. The Inquiry Officer returned a finding that the charge served upon the

petitioner was true. The petitioner represented against the said enquiry report and

the disciplinary authority after consideration of the said representation as well as

other documents on record, concurred with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and

imposed the penalty indicated above. An appeal was also preferred by the

petitioner wherein the penalty was confirmed. Being aggrieved by the said course

of events, the petitioner had filed the said OA before the Tribunal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the

impugned order as well as the other material on record which includes the

statements made by the prosecution witnesses and the defence witnesses. In our

view, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that this is not a case of no evidence or a

case of perversity. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it could not re-

appreciate the evidence as it was not within the scope of the powers of review that

have been conferred upon it by virtue of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner had attempted to submit that this was a

case of no evidence and had also placed reliance on the decision of a Division

Bench of this Court in the case of Principal Secretary (Home) Government of

NCT of Delhi v. Mukesh Kumar decided in Writ Petition (Civil) No.6297/2008on

20.03.2009. However, we find that even a cursory look at the statement of PW-3

Mukesh Kumar would reveal that it is certainly not a case of no evidence as the

allegations have been clearly supported by the said PW-3 Mukesh Kumar. We

need not go into the details of evidence as that is not required of us sitting in this

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are not required to

re-examine the evidence and to come to the finding as to whether the conclusion

arrived at by the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority is right or

wrong. We are only required to examine as to whether the correct procedure has

been followed and the principles of natural justice have been applied. The decision

relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner will not apply to the facts of

the present case inasmuch as in the present case, there is evidence and it cannot be

construed as being a case of no evidence. The said decision in the case of

Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi v. Mukesh Kumar

(supra) was clearly a case of no evidence as would be apparent from the following

observations in the said decision:-

"Keeping the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the parties and legal submission, we find no discrepancy in the orders of the Tribunal. This is a case of "No Evidence" against the Respondent. Therefore, this is not a case where we can interfere with the order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India passed by the CAT in OA No.1638/2006 dated 02.04.2008."

6. In these circumstances, we see no infirmity in the impugned order of the

Tribunal. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K.JAIN, J JANUARY 09,2012/'sn'