Laxman Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 4495 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                       Judgment delivered on: 30.07.2012

+       W.P.(C) 4761/2011


LAXMAN SINGH                                                 ... Petitioner


                                       versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                                ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner           : Mr M.K.Bhardwaj.
For the Respondent           : Ms Ferida Satarawala.


CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL


                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.05.2011

passed in O.A. No.3940/2010 by the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Principal Bench, New Delhi. We may point out at the outset that the

petitioner‟s said original application had been heard along with the

O.A.No.3932/2010 filed by SI Shiv Dev Singh, Constable Vikram and

Constable Rajesh. By the common order dated 31.05.2011 both the original

applications were dismissed. SI Shiv Dev Singh, Constable Vikram and

Constable Rajesh had accepted the decision of the Tribunal and had not

filed any writ petition against the same. It is only Laxman Singh(the present

petitioner) who has challenged the said order.

2. The facts are that a complaint had been received from the

complainant Sameer Saini about him being harassed by the officials of Kirti

Nagar Police Station to pay a substantial amount if he wanted to escape

from criminal prosecution. When such a complaint was received, the

respondents and the Anti Corruption Branch organized a vigilance trap on

26.04.2007. That was, however, aborted as the four delinquents, namely, SI

Shiv Dev Singh, Constable Vikram, Constable Rajesh and Laxman

Singh(the petitioner herein), did not agree to go to the appointed place, that

is, the house where the complainant was running a tuition centre, but the

complainant was asked to come over to a builder‟s office in the

neighborhood. On the instructions of Inspector Dharambir Singh of the

Anti Corruption Branch, the complainant declined to go to the said

builder‟s office.

3. A criminal case, however, was instituted against the above

mentioned four delinquents on 19.07.2007. After investigation, a closure

report was filed on 04.03.2008 on the ground of lack of evidence and the

same was accepted by the Criminal Court on 11.07.2009.

4. However, the respondents had in the meantime initiated a

departmental enquiry on 06.01.2009 on the basis of the said complaint.

Thereafter a regular enquiry was conducted in which the above mentioned

four delinquents participated. The Enquiry Officer found the charges to be

proved. All the four delinquents filed representations against the findings of

the Enquiry Officer. But, the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the

representations, concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer though

insofar as the present petitioner (Laxman Singh) is concerned, a lenient

view was taken and a lighter penalty of forfeiture of one year‟s approved

service for a period of one year was imposed.

5. All the four delinquents including the petitioner filed appeals which

were rejected by the Appellate Authority by virtue of its order dated

03.11.2010. It is, thereafter, that the three delinquents(SI Shiv Dev Singh,

Constable Vikram and Constable Rajesh) filed the said O.A. No.3932/2010

and the petitioner separately filed the O.A. No.3940/2010, which were

dismissed by the common order dated 31.05.2011, which is impugned

herein.

6. One of the points urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the

petitioner was that once there was a closure report then on the same set of

facts and circumstances there ought not to have been a departmental

enquiry and, in any event, the petitioner ought not to have been held guilty

of misconduct. Insofar as this submission is concerned, we may

straightaway say that it has no basis because the standards of proof in a

criminal case and in a departmental enquiry are entirely different and are

well known. Furthermore, the mere fact that a person has been acquitted or

not charged in a criminal case does not mean that a departmental enquiry

cannot independently proceed against such person. Therefore, this

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly untenable.

7. The second submission of the petitioner was that there was no

evidence whatsoever to link the petitioner with the alleged incident.

However, we find that the Tribunal has examined this aspect of the matter

in great detail and has come to conclusion that this was not a case of „no

evidence‟. It is well settled that once it is established that the case involves

some evidence, the Tribunal and indeed the High Court would not enter

into the domain of appreciation of evidence. Therefore, it has to be seen as

to whether this was or was not a case of „no evidence‟.

8. We find that although in the initial complaint the petitioner

Constable Laxman Singh has not been named. However, when the

complainant PW5 Sameer Saini was examined by the Enquiry Officer he

has categorically referred to Laxman Singh, the petitioner herein. This is

evident from the discussion in the enquiry report with regard to the

deposition of Sameer Saini to the following effect:-

"...... After 45 minutes, HC Laxman had again called him and SI Sandhu had again talked to him and had abused him as to why money was not handed over. He promised them to deliver the money on 26.4.07/ on 26.4.07 HC Laxman, Ct. Vikram started calling him on telephone and used to hand over the phone to SI Sandhu who kept on pressing for the money....."

9. There is another reference in the Enquiry Officer‟s report with regard

to the deposition of PW5 to the following effect:-

".......On the day and time SI Sandhu, HC Laxman had called him seven times and SI Sandhu had talked to him instructing him to bring the money to Lamba Properties......"

10. It is also an admitted position that telephonic conversations between

the delinquent officials and the complainant Sameer Saini were, inter alia,

through the mobile phone of the petitioner herein. This fact has been

confirmed from the Tata Indicom.

11. In the light of the above factual position, it cannot be said that this is

a case of „no evidence‟. Once it is established that there is some evidence, it

would not be open for the Tribunal or even for this court to enter into the

field of appreciation of evidence or adequacy thereof.

12. Consequently, there is no merit in the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner. The Tribunal has correctly dismissed the

original application of the petitioner. This writ petition is also dismissed

but, with no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J JULY 30, 2012 mk