Full Judgment Text
Unreportable
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 11896 of 2005
% Decided on : January 14, 2009.
Dy. Commissioner of Police . . . Petitioner
through :
Mr. Vivek K. Tandon, Advocate.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Rath, Advocate.
VERSUS
Ex. Head Constable Satbir Singh . . . Respondent
through Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate.
CORAM :-
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed
to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?
A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL)
1. The respondent herein who was working as a Head Constable in
Delhi Police was deployed for patrolling duty at Beat No. 3, Embassy
Area, on 29-30.12.1995. The duty hours were from 8 pm on
29.12.1995 to 8 am on 30.12.1995. He was posted along with
Constable Jitender Kumar. It was alleged against him that during
those duty hours he robbed one Sanjay Kumar who was employed in
House Keeping Department of Ashoka Hotel and threatened to shoot
him if he reported the incident to anyone. He was armed with a
pistol and a wireless set while Ct. Jitender was armed with a rifle. As
W.P.(C) No. 11896 of 2005 Page 1
per the allegations, at about 10:30 p.m. on 29.12.1995 an intimation
was also received at PS Chanakyapuri that two police personnel were
teasing public on Vinay Marg and had snatched away the wrist
watch from an employee of Ashoka Hotel. On receiving this
complaint, ASI Bankey Bihari posted at PS Chanakyapuri was
directed to inquiry into the matter. He reached Ashoka Hotel and
recorded the statement of Sanjay who reported the aforesaid incident.
On this basis, FIR No. 330/1996 was registered against the
respondent herein under Sections 392/34/506/186/313 IPC.
2. The Commissioner of Police, thereafter, passed orders dated 7.1.1997
dismissing the respondent herein invoking the provisions of Article
311 (2) (b) of the Constitution and dispensing with the inquiry. These
orders were challenged by the respondent by filing OA
No. 1245/1997 which was allowed directing reinstatement of the
respondent herein. The Tribunal held that it was not a case where
the inquiry should have been dispensed with and action, if any,
could be taken only after holding an appropriate departmental
inquiry.
3. Complying with the aforesaid orders and reinstating the respondent
in service, the respondent was served with the charge-sheet and an
Enquiry Officer was also appointed. In this charge-sheet following
charges were framed against the respondent herein.
W.P.(C) No. 11896 of 2005 Page 2
“ I Inspr, Harbans Singh No. D-I/453 II Bn. DAP charge you HC
Satbir Singh No. 1081/DAP and Const. Jitender Kumar
n. 1734/DAP that on the night intervening 20/30-12-96 you HC
Satbir Singh No. 1081/DAP while posted in Special Task Force,
Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. You were deployed for patrolling duty
in Beat No. 3 Embassy Area from 8.00 PM to 8.00 AM . You, HC
Satbir Singh No. 1081/DAP were armed with pistol and wireless set
and Const. Jitender was armed with rifle. While both of you were
on patrolling duty in the area at about 10.30 AM an information was
received at PS Chanakya Puri that two police personnel are teasing
public on Vinay Marg and had snatched money and a wrist watch
from a person of Ashoka Hotel. ASI Banke Bihari of P.S. Chanakya
Puri was detailed to enquire into the matter, who reached at Ashoka
Hotel where one Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Vijay Prakash R/o 25/342,
D.M.S. Colony, Hari Nagar, Ghanta Ghar, New Delhi was found
who report that at about 10.14 PM while he was waiting for a Bus at
Vinay Marg Bus Stand opposite Ashoka Hotel after his duty, two
policemen on Scooter No. DL-6SA-1131, Bajaj Chetak come there.
One was holding a gun and another a W.T. Set. Policeman holding
the gun, manhandled him, broke button of his shirt and removed
his wrist watch H.M.T. Kohinoor and another holding W. Set
removed Rs. 190/- from his purse. After this both policemen
started Scooter and went away threatening that if he went to
Ashoka Hotel they would shoot him. Mr. Sanjay also reported that
both policemen were under the influence of alcohol. He came back
to Ashoka Hotel and informed Security Officer and Asstt. Manager
House Keeping accordingly.
SHO/PS Chanakya Puri and ASI Banke Bihari went to S.T.F. office
and on enquiry, it was revealed that Scooter NO. DL-6SA-1131 was
of Const. Jitender Kumar, who along with you HC Satbir Singh, No.
1081/DAP was on patrolling duty from 8.00 PM to 8.00 AM
checking officer of Special Task Force, ASI Laxmi Narain was
W.P.(C) No. 11896 of 2005 Page 3
summoned in S.T.F. Office and all the staff on patrolling duty in
that night was asked to assemble at Afghan Embassy, AT Afghan
Embassy, the complainant (Sh. Sanjay Kumar ) identified HC Satbir
Singh No. 1081/DAP and Const. Jitender Kumar NO. 1734/DAP to
be the same police personnel, who had robbed him. Both of you
were brought to PS Chanakya Puri and Rs. 190/- snatched from the
complainant were recovered from HC Satbir Singh and the Wrist
watch was recovered from Const. Jitender Kumar, Rifle of Const.
Jitender Kumar was also seized. There you HC Satbir Singh No.
1081/DAP started manholding the I.O. and threatened the duty
officer staff by pointing the pistol you also cocked the pistol and
took away Const. Jitender Kumar threatening the staff of the police
station. The Scooter, wireless Set, Rifle, Rs.190/- and wristwatch
had been already recovered from them whereas pistol was
recovered lateron. The pistol was a surrendered by HC Satbir Singh
to Const. Pawan Kumar No.1359/DAP, who brought it to P.S.
Chanakyapuri. On the complaint of Sh. Sanjay Kumar a case FIR
No. 330 dated 30.12.96 u/s 392/34/505/186/353 IPC has been
registered at PS Chanakya Puri, New Delhi against you, HC Satbir
Singh No. 1081/DAP and Const, Jitender Kumar NO. 1734/DAP.
An absence report was also record vide DD No.30 dated
29/30.12.96, S.T.F. Chanakya Puri.
The above act on your part amounts to gross misconduct,
indiscipline and unbecoming of police official which renders you
liable to be punished under the provisions of Delhi Police
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980.”
4. The Enquiry Officer initially initiated the enquiry proceedings. In the
meantime, however, in the FIR No. 330/1996 registered against the
respondent, learned Additional Session Judge, New Delhi convicted
the respondent vide judgment dated 1.6.2001 under Sections
186/353/224 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent herein
W.P.(C) No. 11896 of 2005 Page 4
preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 444/2001 against the aforesaid
judgment. This appeal was admitted on 18.6.2001.
5. The departmental inquiry was kept in abeyance till the disposal of
the aforesaid criminal appeal and in this behalf, orders dated
12.12.2004 were passed. However thereafter, Disciplinary Authority
decided to continue with the inquiry and passed final order dated
09.10.2003 removing the respondent from service. The respondent
preferred departmental appeal there against, which was also rejected
by the appellate authority. Challenging orders of the Disciplinary
Authority as well as Appellate Authority, the respondent approached
the Tribunal and filed OA No. 716/2004. This OA has been allowed
by the learned Tribunal and penalty orders quashed.
6. In the present writ petition filed by the petitioner, orders dated
16.11.2004 passed by the Tribunal allowed the OA of the respondent
is assailed. Perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal would
demonstrate that the Tribunal rejected various contentions raised by
the respondent. However, one submission of the respondent herein
found favour with the Tribunal, viz., the Inquiry Officer had not
recorded any findings as to which part of charge was proved and he
had simply recorded that the charge stood proved. The Tribunal in
this behalf observed as under:
“18. The present question has necessarily to be examined in the
light of the findings recorded by the Joint Commissioner of Police
W.P.(C) No. 11896 of 2005 Page 5
while dismissing the appeal. In one breath it has been stated that
charge stood proved but still it has been recorded that if the
applicant is acquitted by the High Court, he can represent and
disciplinary authority will take action under Rule 11 (2) of Delhi
Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules. As one reads the order of
the enquiry officer, it is obvious that under the caption
“discussion of evidence”, some evidence has been reproduced.
There is no conclusion as to which part of statement is being
believed and how the witnesses are reliable.
19. At this stage, we hasten to add that we are not expressing on
the merits of the matter and also the gravity of the offence but
when the enquiry officer is to submit the report, necessarily he
must discuss the evidence and record as to if he is believing the
witnesses and how much of the statement has to be believed in a
disciplinary enquiry. After recording of the evidence, he has
concluded that the charge has been proved. This has been acted
upon by the disciplinary authority. Necessarily reasons recorded
means reasons recorded whether a witness is to be believed or
disbelieved. That unfortunately has not been done and even the
appellate authority records that with respect to part of the offence
for which the criminal appeal is pending in the Delhi High Court,
necessary action can be taken. It gives the impression as if the
charge pertaining to duty which culminated also into offence
punishable under Section 353/186/506 was the only one
concerning the applicant. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot
be sustained.”
6. In view of the above, the only direction which is given is that the
Inquiry Officer may pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with
the law. This is wholly justified course of action taken by the
Tribunal in the aforesaid circumstances and we do not see any reason
to interfere with the same.
W.P.(C) No. 11896 of 2005 Page 6
7. We accordingly dismiss this writ petition.
(A.K. SIKRI)
JUDGE
(SURESH KAIT)
JUDGE
January 14, 2009.
sv/pmc
W.P.(C) No. 11896 of 2005 Page 7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 11896 of 2005
% Decided on : January 14, 2009.
Dy. Commissioner of Police . . . Petitioner
through :
Mr. Vivek K. Tandon, Advocate.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Rath, Advocate.
VERSUS
Ex. Head Constable Satbir Singh . . . Respondent
through Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate.
CORAM :-
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed
to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?
A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL)
1. The respondent herein who was working as a Head Constable in
Delhi Police was deployed for patrolling duty at Beat No. 3, Embassy
Area, on 29-30.12.1995. The duty hours were from 8 pm on
29.12.1995 to 8 am on 30.12.1995. He was posted along with
Constable Jitender Kumar. It was alleged against him that during
those duty hours he robbed one Sanjay Kumar who was employed in
House Keeping Department of Ashoka Hotel and threatened to shoot
him if he reported the incident to anyone. He was armed with a
pistol and a wireless set while Ct. Jitender was armed with a rifle. As
W.P.(C) No. 11896 of 2005 Page 1
per the allegations, at about 10:30 p.m. on 29.12.1995 an intimation
was also received at PS Chanakyapuri that two police personnel were
teasing public on Vinay Marg and had snatched away the wrist
watch from an employee of Ashoka Hotel. On receiving this
complaint, ASI Bankey Bihari posted at PS Chanakyapuri was
directed to inquiry into the matter. He reached Ashoka Hotel and
recorded the statement of Sanjay who reported the aforesaid incident.
On this basis, FIR No. 330/1996 was registered against the
respondent herein under Sections 392/34/506/186/313 IPC.
2. The Commissioner of Police, thereafter, passed orders dated 7.1.1997
dismissing the respondent herein invoking the provisions of Article
311 (2) (b) of the Constitution and dispensing with the inquiry. These
orders were challenged by the respondent by filing OA
No. 1245/1997 which was allowed directing reinstatement of the
respondent herein. The Tribunal held that it was not a case where
the inquiry should have been dispensed with and action, if any,
could be taken only after holding an appropriate departmental
inquiry.
3. Complying with the aforesaid orders and reinstating the respondent
in service, the respondent was served with the charge-sheet and an
Enquiry Officer was also appointed. In this charge-sheet following
charges were framed against the respondent herein.
W.P.(C) No. 11896 of 2005 Page 2
“ I Inspr, Harbans Singh No. D-I/453 II Bn. DAP charge you HC
Satbir Singh No. 1081/DAP and Const. Jitender Kumar
n. 1734/DAP that on the night intervening 20/30-12-96 you HC
Satbir Singh No. 1081/DAP while posted in Special Task Force,
Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. You were deployed for patrolling duty
in Beat No. 3 Embassy Area from 8.00 PM to 8.00 AM . You, HC
Satbir Singh No. 1081/DAP were armed with pistol and wireless set
and Const. Jitender was armed with rifle. While both of you were
on patrolling duty in the area at about 10.30 AM an information was
received at PS Chanakya Puri that two police personnel are teasing
public on Vinay Marg and had snatched money and a wrist watch
from a person of Ashoka Hotel. ASI Banke Bihari of P.S. Chanakya
Puri was detailed to enquire into the matter, who reached at Ashoka
Hotel where one Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Vijay Prakash R/o 25/342,
D.M.S. Colony, Hari Nagar, Ghanta Ghar, New Delhi was found
who report that at about 10.14 PM while he was waiting for a Bus at
Vinay Marg Bus Stand opposite Ashoka Hotel after his duty, two
policemen on Scooter No. DL-6SA-1131, Bajaj Chetak come there.
One was holding a gun and another a W.T. Set. Policeman holding
the gun, manhandled him, broke button of his shirt and removed
his wrist watch H.M.T. Kohinoor and another holding W. Set
removed Rs. 190/- from his purse. After this both policemen
started Scooter and went away threatening that if he went to
Ashoka Hotel they would shoot him. Mr. Sanjay also reported that
both policemen were under the influence of alcohol. He came back
to Ashoka Hotel and informed Security Officer and Asstt. Manager
House Keeping accordingly.
SHO/PS Chanakya Puri and ASI Banke Bihari went to S.T.F. office
and on enquiry, it was revealed that Scooter NO. DL-6SA-1131 was
of Const. Jitender Kumar, who along with you HC Satbir Singh, No.
1081/DAP was on patrolling duty from 8.00 PM to 8.00 AM
checking officer of Special Task Force, ASI Laxmi Narain was
W.P.(C) No. 11896 of 2005 Page 3
summoned in S.T.F. Office and all the staff on patrolling duty in
that night was asked to assemble at Afghan Embassy, AT Afghan
Embassy, the complainant (Sh. Sanjay Kumar ) identified HC Satbir
Singh No. 1081/DAP and Const. Jitender Kumar NO. 1734/DAP to
be the same police personnel, who had robbed him. Both of you
were brought to PS Chanakya Puri and Rs. 190/- snatched from the
complainant were recovered from HC Satbir Singh and the Wrist
watch was recovered from Const. Jitender Kumar, Rifle of Const.
Jitender Kumar was also seized. There you HC Satbir Singh No.
1081/DAP started manholding the I.O. and threatened the duty
officer staff by pointing the pistol you also cocked the pistol and
took away Const. Jitender Kumar threatening the staff of the police
station. The Scooter, wireless Set, Rifle, Rs.190/- and wristwatch
had been already recovered from them whereas pistol was
recovered lateron. The pistol was a surrendered by HC Satbir Singh
to Const. Pawan Kumar No.1359/DAP, who brought it to P.S.
Chanakyapuri. On the complaint of Sh. Sanjay Kumar a case FIR
No. 330 dated 30.12.96 u/s 392/34/505/186/353 IPC has been
registered at PS Chanakya Puri, New Delhi against you, HC Satbir
Singh No. 1081/DAP and Const, Jitender Kumar NO. 1734/DAP.
An absence report was also record vide DD No.30 dated
29/30.12.96, S.T.F. Chanakya Puri.
The above act on your part amounts to gross misconduct,
indiscipline and unbecoming of police official which renders you
liable to be punished under the provisions of Delhi Police
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980.”
4. The Enquiry Officer initially initiated the enquiry proceedings. In the
meantime, however, in the FIR No. 330/1996 registered against the
respondent, learned Additional Session Judge, New Delhi convicted
the respondent vide judgment dated 1.6.2001 under Sections
186/353/224 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent herein
W.P.(C) No. 11896 of 2005 Page 4
preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 444/2001 against the aforesaid
judgment. This appeal was admitted on 18.6.2001.
5. The departmental inquiry was kept in abeyance till the disposal of
the aforesaid criminal appeal and in this behalf, orders dated
12.12.2004 were passed. However thereafter, Disciplinary Authority
decided to continue with the inquiry and passed final order dated
09.10.2003 removing the respondent from service. The respondent
preferred departmental appeal there against, which was also rejected
by the appellate authority. Challenging orders of the Disciplinary
Authority as well as Appellate Authority, the respondent approached
the Tribunal and filed OA No. 716/2004. This OA has been allowed
by the learned Tribunal and penalty orders quashed.
6. In the present writ petition filed by the petitioner, orders dated
16.11.2004 passed by the Tribunal allowed the OA of the respondent
is assailed. Perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal would
demonstrate that the Tribunal rejected various contentions raised by
the respondent. However, one submission of the respondent herein
found favour with the Tribunal, viz., the Inquiry Officer had not
recorded any findings as to which part of charge was proved and he
had simply recorded that the charge stood proved. The Tribunal in
this behalf observed as under:
“18. The present question has necessarily to be examined in the
light of the findings recorded by the Joint Commissioner of Police
W.P.(C) No. 11896 of 2005 Page 5
while dismissing the appeal. In one breath it has been stated that
charge stood proved but still it has been recorded that if the
applicant is acquitted by the High Court, he can represent and
disciplinary authority will take action under Rule 11 (2) of Delhi
Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules. As one reads the order of
the enquiry officer, it is obvious that under the caption
“discussion of evidence”, some evidence has been reproduced.
There is no conclusion as to which part of statement is being
believed and how the witnesses are reliable.
19. At this stage, we hasten to add that we are not expressing on
the merits of the matter and also the gravity of the offence but
when the enquiry officer is to submit the report, necessarily he
must discuss the evidence and record as to if he is believing the
witnesses and how much of the statement has to be believed in a
disciplinary enquiry. After recording of the evidence, he has
concluded that the charge has been proved. This has been acted
upon by the disciplinary authority. Necessarily reasons recorded
means reasons recorded whether a witness is to be believed or
disbelieved. That unfortunately has not been done and even the
appellate authority records that with respect to part of the offence
for which the criminal appeal is pending in the Delhi High Court,
necessary action can be taken. It gives the impression as if the
charge pertaining to duty which culminated also into offence
punishable under Section 353/186/506 was the only one
concerning the applicant. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot
be sustained.”
6. In view of the above, the only direction which is given is that the
Inquiry Officer may pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with
the law. This is wholly justified course of action taken by the
Tribunal in the aforesaid circumstances and we do not see any reason
to interfere with the same.
W.P.(C) No. 11896 of 2005 Page 6
7. We accordingly dismiss this writ petition.
(A.K. SIKRI)
JUDGE
(SURESH KAIT)
JUDGE
January 14, 2009.
sv/pmc
W.P.(C) No. 11896 of 2005 Page 7