Prabhu Dayal v. CP & Ors.

9. Aggrieved by the action of respondents, the petitioner filed OA 2788/2001 before the learned Tribunal which set aside the Appellate Authority order and remanded the matter back. However, this Order was then set aside by this Court, vide its Order dated 30.04.2002, and the matter was remitted back to the learned Tribunal for consideration afresh on merit.

10. This led to the passing of the Impugned Order. The learned Tribunal, after examining the record, dismissed the O.A., holding inter alia as follows:- “......It is not our job to scrutinize and reappreciate the evidence based on which the enquiry authority arrived at its findings. In a charge of this nature what is to be seen is as to whether the evidence adduced tilts the balance against the delinquent official to stand the test of preponderance of probability. In this case we find that the enquiry officer has arrived at the findings relying on the material evidence relevant to the charge. The evidence before him was sufficient to arrive at the conclusion. The non-production and non-encashment of cheque would not have materially affected the outcome as the complainant, soon after giving the self cheque to the applicant had passed on instruction to his banker that the cheque had been lost. xxx

7. In so far as the other points raised by the counsel for the applicant are concerned, we tend to agree with the arguments advanced by the counsel of the respondents that neither the enquiry officer nor the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authorities suffer from the irregularities stated to have been committed with regard to the procedure. Mere allegation without sufficient explanation as to how prejudice would be caused because of the procedural gaps, in our view would not materially affect the findings by the EO. The application therefore, has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to cost.”

11. Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the findings of the EO suffer from number of serious infirmities which were overlooked by the learned Tribunal.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

13. He submits that the petitioner, while attempting to locate Mr. Devender Ahluwalia at the stipulated address, had met one Mr. Kushal Pal Singh who had told him that Mr. Devender Ahluwalia had sold off his premises 5-6 years ago, and it is on this account that he returned the Non-Bailable Warrants as unexecuted. He submits that the alleged cheque given to the petitioner, which formed the basis of the charge, was never produced in evidence. He further submits that the failure of the witnesses to identify the petitioner and also the failure on the part of the prosecution to prove as to whether the cheque, which was allegedly given to the petitioner was ever encashed, all points towards the fact that there are large gaps in the statements of PWs which have not been explained in the Enquiry Report. The learned counsel places reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78, to submit that charges of corruption cannot be proved by mere presumption.

14. He further submits that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate particularly when the alleged misconduct had not been proved beyond doubt. He urges that the penalty imposed does not stand the test of proportionality.

15. The learned counsel for petitioner argued that the Impugned Orders were untenable as the entire proceedings are vitiated on account of violation of Rule 15(2) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 (‘the Rules’), which mandated prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police before initiation of a Departmental Enquiry in cases where a Preliminary Enquiry discloses commission of a cognizable offence. The relevant Rule provides:- “(2) In cases in which a preliminary enquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence by a police officer of subordinate rank in his official relations with the public, departmental enquiry shall be ordered after obtaining prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police concerned as to whether a criminal case should be registered and investigated or a departmental enquiry should be held.”

16. He further submits that, since a preliminary enquiry had indeed been conducted in this case and no prior approval of the Additional Commissioner had been taken before initiating the departmental enquiry, the entire proceedings had been rendered invalid.

17. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had also requested the EO to supply some additional documents and had requested for the inspection of the departmental enquiry proceedings file but neither the documents were supplied to him nor was his request to inspect the DE file acceded to.

18. He submits that, therefore, the orders passed in the departmental proceedings as well as the Impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal are liable to be set aside.

19. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that necessary permission under Rule 15 (2) of the Rules to initiate a departmental action against the petitioner was conveyed by PHQ vide a memo dated 24.02.2000.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

20. He further submits that the contention of the petitioner regarding non-supply of the additional documents despite request dated 07.04.2000, and refusal to allow him to inspect the departmental enquiry file during the departmental enquiry, have no basis. He submits that the petitioner, has not raised these objections despite various opportunities provided to him by the EO and that these are mere afterthoughts.

21. On merits, he submits that Mr. Devender Ahluwalia, who was PW-4 in the enquiry proceedings, has categorically identified and deposed against the petitioner for having committed the charged offence. He highlights that PW-5, that is, Mr. Neeraj Bhatia had further gone on to corroborate Mr. Devender Ahluwalia’s statement by stating that he had approached him for money to fulfil the demand of the constable who had been tasked to execute the Non-Bailable Warrants. He submits that thereafter PW-5 had given Rs.5000/- after withdrawing the same from his ATM, along with one self-cheque of Rs.15,000/-, to Mr. Devender Ahluwalia who had handed over the same to the said Constable. He submits that it is a matter of record that the Constable to whom the Non-Bailable Warrants were marked for execution was the petitioner.

22. The learned counsel for respondents submits that the EO’s findings were based on relevant material, and both, the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority, applied their independent mind before affirming the penalty. The learned Tribunal, exercising judicial review, rightly declined to re-appreciate evidence.

23. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

24. On the contention regarding the violation of Rule 15(2) of the Rules, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the necessary permission under Rule 15 (2) of the Rules to initiate a departmental action against the petitioner was conveyed by PHQ vide a memo dated 24.02.2000. We, therefore, find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

25. With regards to contention of the non-supply of documents as well as the alleged refusal to allow him to inspect the departmental proceedings file, a perusal of the record shows that this ground has no basis and that in fact, the petitioner has adequate opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry proceedings.

26. Moreover, we find that the Impugned Order has rightly held that the learned Tribunal cannot scrutinize and re-appreciate the evidence based on which the EO arrived at its findings. The role of the learned Tribunal as well as of the Appellant Court is very limited and they cannot re-appreciate the evidence again, as if sitting in appeal, in order to arrive at a different conclusion. Reliance to this effect can be placed on the Judgement of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610.

27. On the aspect of appreciation of evidence, we hold that while the Supreme Court in Gyan Chand Chattar (supra) has opined that a charge of corruption is required to be proved to the hilt as it brings civil and criminal consequences. A perusal of the record, however, reveals that the charge against the petitioner was not vague. The statements of the witnesses aligned and the orders passed by the competent authorities, which are speaking and well-reasoned. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the Impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal.

28. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

MADHU JAIN, J NAVIN CHAWLA, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2025/ssc/p