ORDER
Meera Chhibber, Member (J)
1. By this OA both the applicants have challenged charge-sheet dated 18.8.2005, disciplinary proceedings and orders dated 10.12.2005 and 15.6.2006 with a further direction to the respondents to release their future increments and regularize the period of suspension as ‘spent on duty’.
2. The brief facts are that following summary of allegation was served on both the applicants:
It is alleged against ASI Satpal No. 5582/PCR, 2570/W (PIS-28790219), Const. Ashok Kumar No. 1321/W (PIS-28892298) and Const. Sugan Chand No. 1819/W (PIS-28900786) that while posted at Police Post Nihal Vihar, PS Nangloi Delhi. Const. Ashok Kumar No. 1321/W and Const. Sugan Chand No. 1819/W lifted Shri Chhannu Khan S/o Shri Jamana Khan R/o S-2/4, Mangol Puri, Delhi from his shop on 22.11.2004 on the direction of ASI Satpal No. 5582/PCR, 2570/W and brought at Police Post Nihal Vihar and handed over to ASI Satpal. They misbehaved with him and threatened to book in a case of kidnapping. ASI Satpal No. 5582/W, 2570/W demanded Rs. 20,000/- as bribe and ultimately extorted Rs. 15,000/- from Shri Chhannu Khan and after that he was allowed to go after signing some blank papers. But no entry was made in the daily diary in connection with Shri Chhannu Khan. An enquiry was conducted through vigilance branch West Distt. in which the allegations were proved against ASI Satpal No. 5582/PCR, 2570/W Const. Ashok Kumar No. 1321/W and Const. Sugan Chand No. 1819/W. The above act on the part of ASI Satpal No. 5582/PCR, 2570/W, Const. Ashok Kumar No. 1321/W and Const. Sugan Chand No. 1819/W amounts to gross misconduct, misbehaviour, extortion of money, dereliction in the officers in a disciplined force which renders them liable to be dealt with departmentally under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.
3. After recording the evidence, following charge was framed:
I, Ran Singh, Inspector, D.E. Cell do hereby charge you, ASI Satpal No. 5582/PCR, 2570/W (PIS No. 28790219), Const. Ashok Kumar No. 1321/W (PIS No. 28892298) and Const. Sugan Chand No. 1819/W (PIS No. 28900786) that while you were posted at Police Post Nihal Vihar P.S. Nangloi, Delhi. You Const. Ashok Kumar No. 1321/W and you Const. Sugan Chand No. 1819/W on the direction of ASI Satpal No. 2570/W lifted Shri Chhannu Khan S/o Shri Jamana Khan R/o S-2/4, Mangol Puri, Delhi from his shop on 22.11.2004 and brought at Police Post Nihal Vihar and handed over to ASI Satpal. You misbehaved with him and threatened to book him in a case of kidnapping. You ASI Satpal No. 5582/PCR (now 2570/W) demanded Rs. 20,000/- as bribe and ultimately extorted Rs. 15,000/- from Shri Chhannu Khan and after that he was allowed to go after signing some blank papers. But no entry was made by you in the Daily Diary in connection with Shri Chhannu Khan.
The above act on the part of you, ASI Satpal No. 5582/PCR (now 2570/W) Const. Ashok Kumar No. 1321/W and Const. Sugan Chand No. 1819/W amounts to gross misconduct, misbehaviour, extortion of money, dereliction in the discharge of your official duties which renders all of you liable to be punished under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.
Enquiry Officer gave his report holding the charge proved against both the applicants (page-58 at 63). Copy of the enquiry report was served on applicants vide U.O. dated 22.10.2005 with direction to give their reply and also to explain why period of suspension from 09.2.2005 should not be treated as period not spent on duty.
4. After examining the representation, enquiry report, evidence on record and hearing them in person, disciplinary authority issued order dated 10.12.2005 whereby imposed punishment of withholding three future increments each of the applicants and their co-defaulter with cumulative effect. They were re-instated from suspension and their suspension period from 09.2.2005 to 09.12.2005 was decided as period not spent on duty for all intents and purposes. Aggrieved by the said order of punishment, the applicants and their co-defaulter preferred an appeal (separately) to Joint CP/SR (appellate authority) which was considered and rejected by the appellate authority vide common order No. 3516-19/SO/SR(AC-II) dated 15.6.2006. It is in these circumstances applicants have filed this OA.
5. Respondents have opposed the OA and submitted that full opportunity was given to the applicants to defend themselves and orders have been passed by the authority as their misconduct was proved in the enquiry and after haring them in person also. Therefore OA may be dismissed.
6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings. The only ground taken by counsel for applicants to challenge the above orders was that PWs had given inconsistent statements. One PW stated that Chhannu Khan’s wife also came to the Police Station but his wife was not examined. Moreover evidence of DWs has been ignored altogether even though they had categorically stated that compromise was entered between the parties outside the Police Station and they had not gone to the Police Station (DW4). DWs clearly stated that no money was demanded (DW1 and DW6 etc.) None of the DWs were cross-examined, so couldn’t have been ignored.
7. Perusal of the disciplinary proceeding file shows there is no procedural infirmity in as much as conducting of enquiry is concerned. Full opportunity was given to the applicants to defend themselves, evidence was recorded in their presence and right to cross-examination was also provided. Copy of report was supplied. Applicants were even heard orally before passing the order of punishment.
8. The law is now well settled that in disciplinary matters court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. Court can interfere only if it is demonstrated that enquiry was not conducted as per the procedure or it is a case of no evidence or the findings recorded are perverse. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors. v. P.C. Kakkar as follows:
It is settled that the court should not interfere with the administrator’s decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of Wednesbury principle the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.
In Union of India v. Parma Nanda , it was held as under:
The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the competent authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter.
In Govt. of Tamil Nadu v. A. Rajapandian , Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
The Administrative Tribunal cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over a decision based on the findings of the inquiring authority in disciplinary proceedings. Where there is some relevant material which the disciplinary authority has accepted and which material reasonably support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority, it is not the function of the Administrative Tribunal to review the same and reach different finding than that of the disciplinary authority.
9. In view of above settled position all that we have to see is whether there was some evidence available on file or not because in disciplinary enquiry the principle applied is preponderance of probability. The test is whether a reasonable person in the circumstances would be justified in reaching the same conclusion as has been arrived at by the authorities. From the records, it is seen that during the course of DE proceedings 6 PWs were examined out of these six PWs, PW-6 is formal in nature and has proved the posting and duty of the defaulters at P.P. Nihal Vihar. PW-1 ASI Abid Khan No. 86/W has conducted the initial enquiry against the defaulters and has proved his enquiry report. PW-2 is the complainant in this DE. He stood by his statement and has categorically made allegation against the defaulters. He has stated that initially Rs. 20,000/- were demanded and then settled for Rs. 15,000/-. He has further stated that the money was paid in the presence of all these defaulters leaving no room for the defaulters to take any alibi. During the cross he has clearly stated the denomination of the currency notes paid to the defaulters. PW-3 is the brother of the complainant. He has also supported the prosecution theory and had stated that Rs. 15,000/- were discussed. PW-4 is also the main and material witness. He is the brother-in-law of the complainant. He has arranged the money to be paid to the police officers. He handed over the money to the complainant in the presence of the defaulters who in turn reported to have handed over the money to Ct. Sugan Chand. This PW has completely supported the statement of the complainant in word and deed and left no room of doubt. PW-5 is also formal in nature and has proved that the copy of Satya Parkash Times was forwarded to ACP/P.B. and ACP/P.G. Cell.
10. It is thus clear that it cannot be said to be a case of no evidence because evidence is very much available on file. Perusal of the statements of DWs shows they are all from the same market and have in one voice stated that compromise took place outside the Police Station and no money was demanded or accepted by police personnel. However, from the evidence of DWs also it is noticed that three things are clearly proved viz. quarrel took place between Chhannu Khan and Ghaffar Khan, the police personnel went to the spot and police people took Channu Khan and Ghaffar Khan to P.P. Nihal Vihar.
11. To illustrate it more elaborately DW1 Ghaffar Khan himself stated that his brother along with two police wallas came to Mangol Puri. They took him and Channu Khan to P.P. Nihal Vihar. Similarly DW2 Sarafat also stated that he went to the house of Channu Khan along with two Constables from P.P. Nihal Vihar and brought back his brother alongwith Chhanu Khan to P.P. Nihal Vihar. DW3 also stated that they went to the shop of Chhanu Khan at Mangol Puri with two Consts. and brought Chhanu Khan at P.P. Nihal Vihar. The most important is DW6 who was temporarily looking after P.P. Nihal Vihar as incharge. He also stated that ASI Satpal had informed him that he had called both the parties. Here lies the catch if ASI had called both the parties why no entry was made in the D.D. From above it is absolutely clear that police did bring Channu Khan to the Police Station. In view of above the statement of other DWs that compromise took place outside the Police Station is of no meaning. It is clear that those statements are tutored ones. It has been noted by the disciplinary authority that there is no entry in the Roznamacha that Channu Khan was brought to the Police Post by police. It is also noted that presence of all the three accused at Police Post is proved from the Chhitha produced during enquiry. All the contentions raised by applicants are considered by the authorities and reasoned orders are passed by both disciplinary as well as appellate authorities. We find no ground to interfere in the case in these circumstances. Since orders are based on evidence, OA is found to be devoid of any merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.