JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Vs. NAWAL KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Govt. of NCT of Delhi is aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 25.04.2007 by which O.A. No.1015/2006 was allowed. That application was preferred by the respondent (hereafter called "the applicant") , questioning the findings of the Enquiry Officer in a disciplinary proceeding dated26.09.2005, dismissing him from the service of Delhi Police.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the petitioner was working as Addl. SHO at Police Station Nabi Karim, when he was named as an accused and charged with offences punishable under Sections 395/397/398/120 -B IPC. The allegation was that he had conspired with other accused, to rob one Prem Narain, who was a passenger in a car on way from the airport. Further allegation was that the said Prem Narain, in his statement, had implicated several individuals and alleged that gold belonging to him was sought to be robbed and in the process chilly powder was thrown at his driver.

(3.) IN the meanwhile, on 30.07.2002, a memorandum of charges with summary allegations was issued along with a list of witnesses and documents sought to be relied upon. This led to a full -fledged enquiry at the culmination of which the Enquiry Officer, after discussing the evidence presented to him, concluded that the charges levelled were partially proved. The findings of the Enquiry Officer were recorded in his report dated 22.11.2004. The Joint Commissioner of Police (hereafter referred to as the "Jt. CP") - the concerned disciplinary authority, on receipt of the report, was of the opinion that the Enquiry Officer had not taken into account certain materials and, therefore, invoked the power under Rule 16(x) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. This led to revised findings being furnished to the disciplinary authority subsequently; the applicant was given an opportunity and he represented against the revised findings. Ultimately, by the order dated 26.09.2005, the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon the applicant. The applicant's appeal against the disciplinary authority's order was rejected on 21.04.2006.