JAGMOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has impugned the order dated 20th July, 2007 in O. A no. 1443/2006, Ct. Jagmohan Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors holding that there was no procedural infirmity in the enquiry conducted by the respondents and partly allowing the petition to the extent directing the respondent to make the punishment order dated 11th March, 1996 consistent with shakti Singh's case and to issue a corrigendum in respect thereof.

(2.) THE petitioner is a constable in Delhi Police and a major penalty of permanent forfeiture of three years service with reduction in pay and also the loss of increment and postponing all future increments was awarded to him pursuant to an enquiry conducted against him. The petitioner while posted in VI battalion Delhi was temporarily deputed to E Block, Security Police line to perform the personal security officer (PSO) duties. The petitioner was posted along with another constable Somvir Singh and on 3rd October, 1994 when it was checked by Inspector Bhom Singh, checking officer, constable Somvir Singh was found absent from duty. It had transpired that he had not reported for duty and absented himself unauthorisedly, however, the petitioner got the pistol of constable Somvir Singh issued from the malkhana of P. S. Vasant Vihar along with his own weapon. Constable Somvir Singh for whom the pistol was got issued by the petitioner, when contacted had contended that he had gone with Ms. Radhika kapoor to her school, however, it had also transpired that it was a holiday in the school on that day. In the circumstances, the statements made by the petitioner were found to be false and the falsity of the statement could also be inferred from the entries made in the daily diary. The allegation against the petitioner was that he tried to misguide the checking officer by telling lies and he also tried to shield his colleague constable Somvir Singh. Issuance of pistol of Constable Somvir Singh in addition to his own along with 24 cartridges also could not be doubted.

(3.) THE departmental enquiry was thus initiated against the petitioner for major penalty and on the basis of the evidence recorded and the documents, the charges against the petitioner were established and punishment order dated 11th march, 1996 was issued. From 1996 till 2005 no appeal was filed by the petitioner and after about 9 years he filed the appeal on 6th June, 2005.