VINOD KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the recovery of Rs. 28, 449/ from his DCRG.

(2.) ALLEGATIONS against the petitioner are that on 27.11.2005, while he was on duty as Excise and Taxation Inspector at Information Collection Centre Madhopur, vehicle bearing registration No. PB 05E 9447 was going from Amritsar to Jammu and Kashmir. On its physical verification, it was found that there were some readymade clothes which were being carried in the said vehicle without proper and genuine documents. On being confronted therewith, the driver ran away from the spot. It was further alleged that papers of that vehicle were handed over to the petitioner for further necessary action. However, on 29.11.2005, the said vehicle was allowed to proceed further. The petitioner was charge sheeted and he disputed his very presence at the Information Collection Centre Madhopur when the said vehicle was intercepted.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has argued that this is a case where apart from the complainant, there is no other evidence and rather the evidence on the record mitilates against the findings of the Inquiry Officer. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of the complainant where he has himself accepted the possibility that the petitioner was not present at the time when verification of the vehicle was carried out. He has also argued that once it was the positive case of the complainant that there were other officers and staff present when the documents were allegedly handed over to the petitioner, no reason was shown as to why such persons could not be brought forward for deposition to this effect. He has further argued that though this Court does not sit in appeal over proceedings taken in domestic inquiries, yet the law is not that this Court can never interfere. If in any judicial review it is found that conclusion has been arrived at without there being any evidence to prove the same, it will not only a right but duty of this Court to set aside such an arbitrary finding.