Delhi High Court
Raj Singh vs The Commissioner Of Police & Anr. on 27 September, 2016
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3097/2015
Date of decision: 27th September, 2016
RAJ SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj and Ms.
Shriambhra Kashyap, Advocates.
versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Satyakam, Additional Standing
Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner-Raj Singh in this writ petition impugns the order dated
28th October, 2014, whereby OA No.3094/2013 filed by the petitioner has
been dismissed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Delhi (Tribunal, for short).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry report is
based upon assumptions, and the petitioner had released only one scooter
number DL-4S-R 1813 as a Malkhana Muharar. On this basis, it cannot be
assumed that the petitioner was instrumental in the release of six other
vehicles, which were the subject matter of the charge sheet dated 21 st
November, 2011. He, however, submits that the vehicles were released after
the Assistant Commissioner of Police had examined the relevant files and
issued written directions for the release. It has also been highlighted that the
petitioner was charge-sheeted, but was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate,
Bahadurgarh, Haryana in FIR No.320/1999, registered on 19th December,
1999 under Sections 411/419/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 in Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
3. At the outset, we may record that the judgment of acquittal dated 5 th
May, 2007 records that the material witnesses had not been examined by the
prosecution. That apart, the case property was not produced before the Court,
which had rendered the prosecution version debatable. The petitioner and
other accused persons were given the benefit of doubt.
4. It is a settled principle of law that mere acquittal of an accused does
not take away the power of the authority concerned to conduct or continue
the departmental inquiry. Further, the nature of evidence in a criminal trial is
entirely different from that in departmental proceedings. The standard of
proof in the former is that of beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence was led in
the departmental proceedings before the Enquiry Officer. He has
independently examined the evidence produced before him and had
submitted the enquiry report dated 9th December, 2011. The Evidence Act is
not applicable to the enquiry proceedings and the findings were recorded by
the Enquiry Officer and examined by the disciplinary authority and the
appellate authority. The findings are on the principle of preponderance of
probability and not on the basis of facts proved beyond reasonable doubt.
5. The contention of the petitioner that this is a case of no evidence or
perverse decision cannot be accepted. Facts on record as proved and as held
in the enquiry report reveal that one Maruti car and a truck with fake number
plates were recovered from one Ishwar Singh and Taj Ram in Bahadurgarh,
Haryana. During interrogation, Ishwar Singh and Taj Ram had disclosed and
revealed the name of the petitioner i.e. Head Constable Raj Singh as their
accomplice. They also stated that they had misappropriated the aforesaid two
vehicles and seven other vehicles with the help of the petitioner, who was
posted as Malkhana Muharar at Police Station, Paschim Vihar. Factually, this
was found to be correct. These vehicles had been deposited in the Malkhana
at Police Station Paschim Vihar, where the petitioner was posted as
Malkhana Muharar. The petitioner, it is apparent, had also made a disclosure
statement.
6. The contention of the petitioner that the Assistant Commissioner of
Police had signed the files is based only on one fact and ignores the finding in
the enquiry report that the aforesaid vehicles in the Malkhana had been
released on applications being submitted by one and the same person using
almost identical language. The photograph on all the applications belonged
to the same person, who had submitted a copy of a fake ration card as proof
of residence with the applications. The registered owners of the vehicles,
when contacted, had stated that their vehicles were not stolen or the said
person was not found to be residing at the given address. In other words, the
registered owners had not moved any application for release of their vehicles
on superdari.
7. The other contention raised by the petitioner that at best, the petitioner
can be implicated only for the release of scooter number DL-4S-R 1813 and
not six other vehicles, is misconceived. With regard to the release of the
scooter, there was evidence of the petitioners' involvement because he had
signed and prepared the papers. With regard to other six vehicles, there was
evidence in the form of the statements of accused Ishwar Singh and Taj
Ram, who had revealed the entire modus operandi and had also implicated
the present petitioner, Head Constable Raj Singh. The criminal case and the
facts on record reveal that the petitioner was indeed the Malkhana In-Charge
of Police Station, Paschim Vihar and the vehicles had been released by him
on the basis of superdarinama submitted in the police station.
8. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the present case is
not one of no evidence or perverse decision. No other contention or
argument has been raised. The writ petition has no merit is accordingly
dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2016
NA
