Delhi High Court
Vinod Kumar vs C.P.&Ors. on 29 April, 2013
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: April 29, 2013
+ W.P.(C) 5173/2001
VINOD KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Represented by:Mr.Anil Singal, Advocate
versus
C.P.& ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by:Mr.Arjun Syal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Summary of allegations against the petitioner reads as under:-
"It is alleged against Constable Vinod Kumar
No.1435/SD (formerly No.7911/DAP) that
while posted in DAP/VI Bn. he impersonated
himself as a Sub-Inspector of Delhi Police and
claimed to be a widower to deceitfully induce
Ms.Nishu Aggarwal D/o Shri Birj Mohan r/o
C/44, Sector-I, Rohini to have matrimonial
relations with him. Thus their marriage was
solemnized on 13.2.1994 at latters residence
on 13.2.1994 in the presence of
relatives/acquittances of both of them. This
marriage was consummated by him under
above circumstances for about a year. He also
made above said lady to part with a sum of
W P (C) 5173/2001 1 of 5
Rs.30,000/- for medical treatment of his
brother which she paid only because of
formation of above said relations between the
two. However, the defaulter subsequently
deserted her, married another girl and also did
not pay back above amount of Rs.30,000/-
obtained under the euphoria of his
matrimonial relations with her.
The above acts of fraud, moral turpitude and
dishonesty on the part of above Constable
amount to grave misconduct unbecoming of a
Police Officer which make him liable for
disciplinary action u/s 21of Delhi Police Act,
1978."
2. At the enquiry Nishu Aggarwal appeared as PW-1. Her sister
Usha Mittal appeared as PW-2 to support the indictment.
3. In her deposition during enquiry Nishu Aggarwal produced
various photographs which were exhibited as Exhibits PW-1, PW-
1/A, PW-1/B and PW-1/C, which have been seen by us in the record
of enquiry produced. The photographs would show petitioner and
Nishu Aggarwal in a close and intimate position; as one would find a
husband and wife to be. Exhibit PW-1/A appears to be a photograph
at a family function where petitioner is holding, in his arms, a child
born to Nishu Aggarwal from her previous marriage and the other
child standing in front. The manner in which petitioner and Nishu
Aggarwal and the two children are positioned is akin to a family
photograph. Exhibit PW-1/B and Exhibit PW-1/C shows the couple
at Hardwar with the petitioner in his underwear. Nishu Aggarwal
W P (C) 5173/2001 2 of 5
with a baby is next to him. The petitioner has rendered no
satisfactory explanation for the photographs in question.
4. No doubt the evidence established that Nishu Aggarwal had
yet to be divorced from her husband when she and the petitioner
performed the marriage improperly so called.
5. The finding returned by the enquiry is that it cannot be said
that the petitioner got married to Nishu Aggarwal for the reason she
was already married. But this would mean that a marriage properly
so-called between petitioner and she was not established. But a
marriage improperly so-called was established.
6. The testimony of Nishu Aggarwal would reveal that her
husband had abandoned her. Petitioner first took her confidence,
then her affection and finally her love by posing as a Sub-Inspector.
He then started physical intimacy with her. In the position she was,
Nishu Aggarwal would probably be finding comfort of a male police
officer providing for her and her children. She could hardly realize
that it was her body which was being the target of the petitioner.
7. Be that as it may, what is relevant is that a member of the
police force using his dress as allurement was living in an adulterous
relationship with a woman in distress.
8. The contention that the summary of allegations are vague, in
that, the time of marriage has not been specified is noted and rejected
for the reason people refer to the dates when they got married and not
the specific time.
9. The contention that marriage has not been proved as per the
indictment needs to be countenanced by observing that a marriage
W P (C) 5173/2001 3 of 5
properly so-called may not have been established, but a marriage
improperly so-called stood established. The acts of fraud, moral
turpitude alleged against the petitioner is of deceitfully inducing
Nishu Aggarwal to have matrimonial relations with him. It stands
established from the testimony of Nishu Aggarwal and the
photographs she produced at the enquiry.
10. We highlight that when Nishu Aggarwal was cross-examined
no suggestion was given to her that the photographs are either
morphed or have been contrived by using negatives.
11. The Central Administrative Tribunal has discussed the
evidence and the law on the subject as recorded in the impugned
order dated September 19, 2000.
12. We have therefore briefly noted the contentions urged before
us and the nature of the indictment as also the evidence. Suffice
would it be to state that if on the question of fact a Writ Court agrees
with the finding by a subordinate Fora, it would be enough for the
Writ Court to reveal in its opinion that the issue has been understood
and appraised of.
13. We dismiss the writ petition.
14. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that
compassionate allowance may be sanctioned. The petitioner may
move an application to the competent authority for compassionate
allowance to be paid to him under Rule 41 of the CCS Pension Rules.
If he can make out a case for compassionate allowance to be
sanctioned i.e. if petitioner can make out that his is a case deserving
of special consideration, compassionate allowance may be sanctioned
W P (C) 5173/2001 4 of 5
by the competent authority.
15. No costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(V.KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
APRIL 29, 2013
mm
W P (C) 5173/2001 5 of 5
