N S GEORGE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, at the relevant time, was posted as Constable in Delhi Police. Allegedly he had threatened one Mr. Rajiv Sharma on his telephone to pay him 50,000/-, otherwise it could be dangerous for his life. The telephone call was received by Nurse Licy posted in the hospital of Dr. Rajeev Sharma. The petitioner who threatened on telephone claimed himself to be a gangster of LTTE. Dr. Rajeev Sharma directed Nurse Licy to fix an appointment with the person who had called him to pay the amount in case of receiving telephone call. On 14 th December 1991, he allegedly rang up at 10 am and repeated the same words. On this Nurse Licy fixed a time and venue. On the same day, near the gate of Vishal Cinema at about 3.45 pm; a young man whose name was later on disclosed as George N.S. came there and talked with Nurse Licy and as soon as he accepted the bag of money which was containing plain papers, Nurse Licy gave signal and the police personnel who were nearby, apprehended George N.S. who had been working as Constable with Delhi Police Control room. On this basis, an FIR bearing number 351 dated 14 th December 1991 under Sections 384, 506 IPC Police Station Sultanpuri was registered and the said Constable was arrested. He was placed under suspension with effect from 14 th December 1991. However, later on he was reinstated vide order dated 3 rd December 1993. The Departmental Enquiry was entrusted to Insp. Dahia, which was later on transferred to Inspector Tyagi on 20 th November 1992. The enquiry was held in abeyance vide order dated 30 th December, 1992 till the final verdict of the Criminal Court in case under Section 384, 506 IPC PS Sultanpuri. It was restarted and entrusted to Inspector Salma Khan and later on was transferred to Inspector Veer Bala on 23 rd October 1998. In the meantime, Constable George N.S. was acquitted in the criminal case by learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide his judgment dated 21 st September 1998, as before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the prosecution failed to lead any evidence except Nurse Licy who was examined-in-chief, but did not appear for cross examination for many years. The case property comprising of plain paper notes was also not produced at any point of time. The case being pending for about 7 years, the Court recorded acquittal of George N.S. on account of lack of evidence against him. The departmental enquiry was completed by Inspector Veer Bala who recorded charge against the petitioner as proved beyond reasonable doubt. In response to show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his representation, which came to be considered by the Disciplinary Authority. While maintaining the findings recorded by Enquiry Officer Inspector Veer Bala, the Disciplinary Authority also recorded that while in the criminal case, evidence of Nurse Licy could not be taken into account because her cross examination could not be recorded, in the Departmental Enquiry, she had deposed in favour of the prosecution and thus there being much more evidence in favour of prosecution in the Departmental Enquiry than what was available in the criminal case, the charge against the petitioner stood logically proved. While recording these observations, the Disciplinary Authority also noted that although the service record of the petitioner was clean, but such a serious criminal act on his part rendered him unfit to remain in the force. Consequently, a dismissal order was passed against the petitioner George N.S. with immediate effect. His suspension period from 14 th December 1991 to 2 nd December 1993 was also treated as a period not spent on duty.

(2.) A statutory appeal against the order of Disciplinary Authority was preferred by the petitioner to the Additional Commissioner of Police under Section 23 of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 (for short, he Rules") against the order dated 11 th September 1999 as passed the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority maintained the order of Disciplinary Authority, recording that the appellant has already been held guilty in an enquiry under the Rules and as such there was no need to examine his case under Rule 12 of the Rules. The orders of Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which came to be dismissed vide the impugned order dated 22 nd January 2000. While summarily rejecting the application of the petitioner, CAT observed as under:

(3.) The impugned order of CAT is in challenge before us in the present writ petition.