It is definitely a matter of utmost significance to all the men in uniform to note in their own best interests that none other than the Delhi High Court itself in a most notable judgment titled Suresh Kumar vs CP & Ors in W.P.(C) 7245/2003 that was reserved on November 1 and then finally pronounced as recently as on November 9, 2022 has been most firm in upholding the dismissal of a police head constable who was caught with 75 dirhams while on duty of checking passengers passports of the Indira Gandhi International Airport in 1996, observing that the police officers who break law must be “dealt with iron hands”. We thus see that Delhi High Court has been very firm and forthright to display complete zero tolerance towards corruption by men in uniform! While calling it an “open and shut case”, a Division Bench of Hon’ble Mr Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon’ble Mr Justice Subramonium Prasad said possession of foreign currency in head constable’s pocket at the time of surprise check along with statements of witnesses “clearly establishes misconduct committed by him”. Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma for a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Subramonium Prasad sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The Petition is arising out of an order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the Ld. Central Administration Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “CAT”) in O. A. No. 2635/2002 decided on 07.08.2003.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then while elaborating on facts of case envisages in para 2 that, “The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the Petitioner before this Court was an employee serving on the post of Head Constable in the services of Delhi Police, and was posted at Terminal 2 of the Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport, and on 24.03.1996, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP)/ IGI Airport conducted a surprise visit from 03:30 Hours to 04:00 Hours and was informed that ASI Jagmal Singh and Head Constable Suresh Kumar who were checking Passports of passengers were collecting money from the passengers and, in those circumstances, a search was carried out by the DCP/IGI Airport at 0405 Hours on 24.03.1996. It is an admitted fact that from the pocket of the Petitioner Head Constable Suresh Kumar, 75 Dirhams were recovered and ASI Jagmal Singh was also present on duty at the same point of time.”
Further, the Division Bench states in para 3 that, “The facts further reveal that based upon the aforesaid incident, a seizure memo was prepared. Recovered amount was deposited in Malkhana of PS/IGI Airport, Delhi, and an action was initiated under the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) read with Section 21 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978.”
Delving into nitty-gritty of this case, the Division Bench then discloses in para 4 that, “A joint enquiry was ordered in the matter against ASI Jagmal Singh and Head Constable Suresh Kumar – the present Petitioner. The summary of allegations leveled against the Petitioner are reproduced as under:
“You ASI Jagmal Singh, 3096/D and HC Suresh Kumar, 220/A when detailed at Arrival Exit, Gate Shift “B” NITC Airport on the night intervening 23/24.3.96, were checked by DCP/IGI Airport during his surprise visit at Terminal-II from 3.30 hrs. to 4.00 hrs. Your activities were suspicious and were found checking passports of selected persons. Besides, on questioning passengers, passing/exiting through that gate, it was confirmed that police officials at that gate were extorting and taking money. At 4.05 hrs., DCP/IGI Airport, Delhi searched the pockets of HC Suresh Kumar No.220/A and 75 Dirhams (5×5 + 5×10 Dirhams) were recovered from the left side pocket of his pant whereas ASI Jagmal Singh 3096/D was also present at that time at the same point of duty. The seizure memo, was prepared and the recovered amount was deposited in Malkhana PS IGI Airport, Delhi. The above act of ASI Jagmal Singh, 3096/D and HC Suresh Kumar, 220/A amounts to gross misconduct of indulging into corrupt practice in discharge of their official duties which renders them liable for departmental action in accordance with DP (P&A) Rules-1980 as envisaged under Section 21 of DP Act, 1978.””
Furthermore, the Division Bench then reveals in para 5 that, “An Enquiry Officer was appointed in the matter and after meticulous examination of the witnesses, it was held that the charges stood established. Finally an order was passed on 20.09.1999 by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the Petitioner as well as ASI Jagmal Singh from service.”
To be sure, the Division Bench then specifies in para 6 that, “An Appeal was preferred in the matter and the Commissioner of Police by an order dated 26.08.2002 dismissed the Appeal by a detailed and exhaustive speaking order.”
As it turned out, the Division Bench then mentions in para 7 that, “The Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 20.09.1999 and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 26.08.2002 preferred an Original Application being O.A. No. 2635/2002 before the Ld. CAT. The Ld. CAT vide order dated 07.08.2002 has dismissed the Original Application. Paragraphs 6 to 10 of the order passed by the Ld. CAT dismissing the O.A. read as under:
“6. Confronted with that position, the learned counsel for the applicant had highlighted that it was a case of no evidence. He also argued that the inquiry officer had not examined any of those passengers and on the sole testimony of the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police, the findings have been so arrived at. Resultantly, the same deserve to quashed.
7. We know from a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India & Anr. v. Degala Suryanarayana, JT 1999 (4) SC 489 that scope for interference in disciplinary proceedings while judicially reviewing the same is limited. The I findings recorded by the disciplinary authority would be ordinarily immune from interference unless it is case of no evidence or no reasonable person can come to such a finding. The Supreme Court in the facts of that case held that the High Court clearly exceeded the bounds of power of judicial review available to it while exercising writ Jurisdiction over a departmental disciplinary enquiry proceeding.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case Of Hardwari Lai v. State of U.P. and others, (1999) 8 SCC 582. In the cited case, Hardwari Lal was Police Constable. He was charged of having abused his colleague while he was under the influence of liquor. In the enquiry that ensued neither the complainant nor the other employee who accompanied the said person was examined. The Supreme Court held that it was a case of no evidence. Similarly reliance was further placed on a decision of this Tribunal in the case of Lalit Prasad v. Govt.of HCT of Delhi and Others in OA No.1693/2000 rendered on 11.7.2001. Herein also the assertion was the same that the relevant material witness had not been examined. Thus Tribunal on appreciation of the facts of the case concluded that the order would not withstand scrutiny.
9. There is indeed no controversy that can be raised pertaining to the said plea. If material witnesses had not been examined, necessarily, the effect would be not favourable to the department. However while scrutinizing the same, the facts of each case cannot be ignored and they take pre-dominance. In the present case in hand, to insist that those passengers who were due to leave the country for certain destinations must also have been examined would be improper. At the relevant time, certain passengers were passing through the gate. The applicant is alleged to be extorting some amount from them. The departmental enquiry is not like a criminal trial where proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. The findings can be arrived at on preponderance of probabilities. The complainant happened to be the Deputy Commissioner of Police at the Indira Gandhi International Airport. He had conducted surprise check. He himself had seen that the applicant was checking the passports of the selected passengers and acting suspiciously. On inquiry, it was found that he was extorting money and on personal check, 75 Dirhams were recovered from him. To state that the money recovered from the applicant belonged to someone else would be an afterthought and cannot be believed. What was witnessed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police who had appeared as a witness and was the complainant was supported by the above said facts. In that view of the matter, the defence was rightly rejected that it cannot be termed that it was case where there was no evidence on the record. Therefore, it would be improper for this Tribunal to interfere.
10. For these reasons, the present application being without merit must fail and is dismissed. No costs.””
Needless to say, the Division Bench then observes in para 8 that, “The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Order of Commissioner of Police, the Disciplinary Authority and the order passed by the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal.”
As we see, the Division Bench after listening to both sides unequivocally states in para 13 that, “This Court has taken into account all the grounds raised by the Petitioner and by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the present case is a case of no evidence. It is an undisputed fact that 75 Dirhams were recovered from the Petitioner at the time when the search took place and the Petitioner was certainly not a traveler who came from some foreign country, thereby being in possession of Dirhams.”
In short, the para 14 mentions that, “The Police Official who is present at the Airport to check the travelers was found with foreign currency and no satisfactory explanation was provided by him for possession of the same at the time of search and seizure. The Enquiry Report is on record and the statements of PW-1 Insp. RC Garg, PW-2 Insp Jagdish Yadav, D/2020 and PW-3 Sh. Rajesh Kumar the then DCP/IGI Airport are reproduced.” It is due to paucity of space we are not elaborating here in detail.
Do note, the Division Bench then states in para 15 that, “The aforesaid statements of the witnesses make it very clear that based upon certain allegations regarding extortion of money, a surprise check was carried out and 75 Dirhams were recovered from the Petitioner.”
It cannot be lost sight of that the Division Bench then mentions aptly in para 16 that, “It is nobody’s case that the Enquiry Officer has acted as a prosecutor and the Ld. Tribunal has certainly considered the grounds raised by the Petitioner. The Ld. Tribunal has rightly held that Rule 16V of the Rules empower the Enquiry Officer to frame questions which he wishes to put to the witnesses in order to clear ambiguities.”
In addition, it is then added in para 17 that, “In the present case, the Enquiry Officer has not even suggested leading questions as argued before this Court. Further in a Departmental Enquiry, misconduct has to be proved on the basis of preponderance of probability.”
Most significantly, the Division Bench then minces no words to unambiguously hold in para 18 that, “The present case is certainly not a case of no evidence. It is an open and shut case, wherein, a Head Constable was found with 75 Dirhams. He was posted on a very sensitive duty, to check the passports of passengers. Possession of foreign currency in his pocket at the time of a surprise check read with statements of other witnesses clearly establishes the misconduct committed by him.”
Most forthrightly, the Division Bench then mandates in para 20 that, “In the present case, this Court is dealing with Police personnel who is supposed to be the custodian of law and whose duty is to ensure that people are following the law of the land. If such a person himself breaks the law, he has to be dealt with iron hands, and, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court no other punishment except dismissal could have been inflicted upon him in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Ld. CAT.”
Be it noted, the Division Bench cites the following landmark cases in this learned judgment –
1. R. Mahalingam v. T.N. Public Service Commission, (2013) 14 SCC 379 in para 21
2. Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759, (in paragraphs 16 & 17) in para 22;
3. State of A.P. Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao, (1964) 3 SCR 25, (in paragraph 7) in para 24;
4. Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, (in paragraphs 12 & 13) in para 26.
Apart from the above, the Division Bench then also hastens to add in para 27 that, “The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. N. Gangaraj, (2020) 3 SCC423, has taken into account the earlier judgments delivered on the subject and has reiterated that the scope of interference in departmental enquiry is quite limited. Interference in disciplinary proceedings can be done in case there is violation of principles of natural justice and fair play or if the findings arrived at are based on no evidence/perverse findings.”
As a corollary, the Division Bench then holds in para 28 that, “In light of the aforesaid judgments and in absence of any procedural irregularity or violation of principle of natural justice and fair play, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority as well as the order passed by the CAT.”
Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by holding in para 29 that, “The Writ Petition stands dismissed.”
In essence, the Division Bench of Delhi High Court has very rightly accorded most substantial, pragmatic and robust reasons for upholding the dismissal and dismissing the writ petition that was filed by head constable Suresh Kumar against an order of CAT upholding his dismissal from service. There is no reason to my mind to differ with what has been held. Yet we have to appreciate that the head constable has the remedy to appeal before the Supreme Court and what it rules is not for us to speculate and is not in our realm! No denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi