AZAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and one Head Constable Shamsher Singh were accused in a criminal case in FIR No. 465 dated 12.9.2007 registered in Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120 -B IPC and were tried together before the Special Judge, Karnal in PCA case No. 12 of 2008 instituted on 21.11.2008. The charge against them was of demand of bribe from complainant Pardeep Kumar inasmuch as they threatened registration of a case under the NDPS Act for possession of poppy husk stated to have been planted by one Kali in the shop of the complainant. The Special Judge, Karnal, by his judgment dated 26.7.2010 acquitted the petitioner and his fellow policeman after the complainant Pardeep Kumar -PW -6 and the eye witness Devi Dayal -PW -5 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Both the witnesses resiled from their statements made by them to the police during the course of the investigation and gave a clean chit to the accused on deposition on oath in the witness box that the accused never demanded and accepted any money from Pardeep Kumar as illegal gratification for not registration of a criminal case. The Special Judge records in the order that he had no option but to pass an order of acquittal of the accused on prime witness turning hostile at the trial. Side by side of the criminal trial, a departmental enquiry was initiated against both the petitioner and Head Constable Shamsher Singh. Charge -sheets were issued to them and after recording evidence the enquiry officer/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Assandh submitted his report in which the charges levelled were proven with respect to the subject matter of the criminal trial and the departmental proceedings. They were held guilty of abusing their office and tarnishing the image of the police in the eyes of the public. Pardeep Kumar -complainant appeared as a witness for the prosecution in the enquiry. He was cross examined. He resiled from his previous statement made before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which he could not to inculpate himself. The enquiry officer records thus:

(2.) THE enquiry officer in his detailed enquiry report has inferred that the petitioner delinquent won over the complainant and the main witness in such manner as to have brought evidence in their favour sufficient for acquittal of the criminal charge. However, after appreciating the remaining prosecution and defence evidence the enquiry officer held that the delinquent demanded illegal gratification and took his share of the bribe money. The petitioner was held guilty of the charges levelled against him.

(3.) THE Superintendent of Police, Karnal, by his order dated 31.12.2008 found that there was sufficient evidence available on record of the departmental enquiry pointing to the guilt of the defaulter in demanding and taking illegal gratification in criminal conspiracy with HC Shamsher Singh. The petitioner was afforded opportunity of personal hearing. His length of service was considered together with his previous service record which in the opinion of the punishing authority of Constables would make the punishment of dismissal harsh and instead punished the petitioner with reversion from the rank of Exemptee Head Constable to Constable.