ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the year 2005 Maj.Gen.(Retd.) R.K.Kaushal became an accused in FIR No.671/04 for offences punishable under Section 420/120-B IPC read with Section 24 of the Emigration Act. It was alleged against him that he cheated several persons by offering them jobs abroad and after taking huge sums of money did not honour his word.

(2.) THE investigation was entrusted to the respondent, SI Sushil Kumar i.e. the respondent who after obtaining orders from the Court took on remand the accused for purposes of investigation and recoveries and in the course of investigation took him to Dehradun. After investigations were over and the charge-sheet was filed the accused Maj.Gen.(Retd.) R.K.Kaushal obtained bail pending trial and started making allegations against the police officers who were associated in the investigation, including the respondent. Taking cognizance of the allegations made by Maj.Gen.(Retd.) R.K.Kaushal as contained in his exhaustive complaint dated February 22, 2006 a departmental inquiry was conducted by a senior officer who submitted a report that save and except one the allegations alleged against the respondent by Maj.Gen.(Retd.) R.K.Kaushal were not only baseless but were motivated to demoralize the police officers who had investigated FIR No.671/04.

(3.) IN respect of said factual allegation in the complaint the report of the inquiry was that the entry in the hotel register was in the handwriting of the respondent and as per the statement made by Sanjeev Pundir, the Manager of the hotel, the payment for the stay was made by the respondent. Only one allegation made by Maj.Gen.(Retd.) R.K.Kaushal was found to be with substance i.e. of availing a transport facility provided by him i.e. Maj.Gen.(Retd.) R.K.Kaushal to transport him i.e. Maj.Gen.(Retd.) R.K.Kaushal from Jaipur to Delhi, in respect of which allegation found to be correct during the preliminary fact finding inquiry a charge-memo was issued to the respondent resulting in penalty of censure being imposed. We are not concerned with the said penalty inasmuch as the respondent has questioned the same in a separate proceeding.