HARDAYAL SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as Head Constable in Delhi Police. In september 1984, the petitioner enticed Ashok Kumar and three others with the promise of sending them abroad with the help of an agent, Sardar Ali for which he charged Rs. 8,000/- each from Ashok Kumar and Boota Ram and Rs. 7,000/- from amar Chand as advance. The petitioner, with the help of Sardar Ali took the aforesaid persons to Bombay and further charged Rs. 8,000/- each from Ashok kumar and Boota Ram and Rs. 7,000/- from Amar Chand on the pretext of medical examination. The disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority awarded the punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner vide order dated 21st May 1998. The petitioner filed an appeal which was also rejected vide order dated 15th March 1999. After a gap of about three years, the petitioner filed OA No. 314/2002 before the learned Tribunal which was disposed of on 7th February 2002 whereby the learned Tribunal set aside order of the Appellate Authority with liberty to have the appeal decided by another competent authority and liberty to the petitioner to take additional pleas. The Appellate Authority passed a fresh order on 20th August 2002 again dismissing the appeal of the petitioner which was challenged by the petitioner in OA No. 472/2004 The learned Tribunal dismissed the OA of the petitioner which is under challenge before us.

(2.) THE main contention on behalf of petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter and out of five prosecution witnesses, only three witnesses supported the prosecution case and the version of the petitioner was supported by the other two witnesses. The petitioner further contends that his case was supported by five witnesses. We find that the learned Tribunal has correctly examined these submissions and have given a finding that there has been sufficient material on record against the petitioner. We agree that the findings of the Tribunal contained in paras 15 to 18 of the order which are reproduced herein below:-

(3.) WE further note that the FIR was also registered against the petitioner under Sections 420/120b IPC and Sections 24/25 of the Emigration Act on 18th july 1985 which ultimately resulted in his conviction by the Metropolitan magistrate vide order dated 15th March 2003. Vide order dated 31st March 2003, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 120 B IPC. The petitioner was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 420 IPC. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence in appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 17th November 2003. The petitioner filed the revision petition before this Hon"ble Court which was disposed of vide judgment dated 29th August 2005. In the said revision, the petitioner gave up the challenge to the order of conviction on merits and confined the challenge only to question of sentence on the ground that he had already undergone three months of sentence and had also deposited the fine. The petitioner further submitted that he had superannuated and was 65 years of age and he be given benefit under Section 360 cr. P. C. and be released on probation. In view of the aforesaid statement, the conviction order was upheld and the petitioner was released on probation. We may further note that the petitioner expired during the pendency of this petition on 9th December 2005 and his legal representatives (LRs) were brought on record vide order dated 10th January 2008.