ASI RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, officials of Delhi Police, challenge order dated 10th December, 2009 passed in original application No.3519 of 2009 titled Inspector Rameshwar Khatri and others v. Government of NCTD and others declining their plea to stay the departmental proceedings against them during the pendency of criminal proceedings pending against them under Prevention of Corruption Act and to set aside the orders passed in departmental proceedings.

(2.) The petitioners are facing trial in FIR No.33 of 2008 dated 14th February, 2008 under Section 384/385/389/342/120B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Economic Offences Wing. Against the petitioners departmental proceedings have also been initiated on 17th August, 2009.

(3.) The allegations against the petitioners are that while posted in special staff cell, Central District, on receiving the information through Constable Naresh regarding illegal kidney transplant scam by Dr. Amit and Dr. Upender at Gurgaon, Haryana, they apprehended a resident of Meerut, Mr.Shahid, who led to them to apprehend Kamaljeet Singh and Hem Ram from Gurudwara near All India Institute of Medical Sciences who led the police party to the residence of Dr.Amit at Gurgaon from where Dr.Upender was apprehended. The petitioners on 7th January, 2008 had proceeded without lodging their departure in daily diary. After apprehending the Doctors, the petitioners struck a deal with Doctors to secure their release and extorted an amount of Rs.19.85 lakhs and let them off without taking any action and distributed the extorted money. In the circumstances, it has been alleged against them that their illegal act had prevent unearthing of illegal kidney transplant scam and has also defamed the image of the Delhi Police in the eyes of general public which amounts to gross misconduct and negligence and dereliction in discharge of their official duties and therefore the departmental proceedings under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 has been initiated against them. The petitioners made representations in the departmental proceedings to keep the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance on the ground that the departmental inquiry would involve complicated questions of law and fact which would emerge as the criminal trial will proceed against them and therefore departmental proceedings should be stayed. For stay of departmental proceedings, it was also asserted that Mr.Shahid residence of Meerut is a witness in departmental proceedings who is also facing criminal trial and in one of the cases he has been convicted. Consequently, it is contended that it will not be appropriate to place reliance on the testimony of such a witness in the departmental proceedings. In not citing the Doctors as witness before the departmental proceedings it is also agitated as a ground to stay the proceedings, as according to petitioners in the absence of their testimony the respondents would not be able to prove their case against petitioners.