SUKHBIR SINGH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Constable Driver in Delhi police was dismissed from service on 15.3.1982. A charge of stealing a brass utensil (Patila) was held to be proved against him. The enquiry was conducted u/s 21 of the Act. In this petition the petitioner has challenged his dismissal from service. The charge against the petitioner was (--)

(2.) A criminal complaint was lodged against the petitioner u/s 380, Indian Penal Code . However, the same was not pursued. The Deputy Comm. of police (C.K. Misra) decided that instead of proceeding in the criminal court a departmental enquiry should be conducted. [portion of his order is reproduced]

(3.) The prosecution examined 9 witnesses. The petitioner examined 3 witnesses in support of his case. His main plea was that the allegation was concocted and false. From the evidence it is clear that nobody had seen the petitioner actually removing the utensil from the mess. However, the prosecution witnesses as well as the defence witnesses had found the utensil in the truck of which the petitioner was the Driver. Two prosecution witnesses also stated to have seen the petitioner depositing the utensil in the mess. All this is after the discovery of the utensil in the shop belonging to the petitioner's brother. In the strict legal requirement Section 378, Indian Penal Code , it may be difficult to hold that the petitioner had committed a theft. The petitioner's misconduct, however, can be reasonably inferred from the fact that the utensil was located in his brother's tea shop. The prosecution version that the tea shop is of both the brothers is not controverted. The utensil was returned to the mess by the petitioner. He did not do it on his own. It was done only after the utensil was discovered in the shop by the Officer-in-charge of the mess and some other employees. The conclusion in the departmental proceeding that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct is, therefore, reasonably correct.