In W.P.(C) 5837/2003-DEL HC- Failure to supply copy of preliminary enquiry report can be prejudicial only if it constituted material on basis of which finding of guilt may have been recorded or formed basis for Disciplinary Authority’s opinion, reaffirms Delhi HC
Justices Satish Chandra Sharma & Yashwant Varma [07-10-2022]

 

Read Order: ASHOK KUMAR v. ADDL.C.P. DELHI & ORS 

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, October 7, 2022: While confirming the order of dismissal of a delinquent police officer from service where allegations of extortion of money was involved, the Delhi High Court has opined that the veracity of the charges which were leveled against the employee were tried and found to be proved on the basis of independent evidence which was led in the course of disciplinary proceedings.

“While parting the Court bears in mind the well settled principle that a failure to supply a copy of a preliminary enquiry report can be recognized to be prejudicial only if it be found that it constituted material on the basis of which a finding of guilt may have come to be recorded or formed the basis for the formation of the opinion ultimately framed by the Disciplinary Authority to record a finding of guilt against the delinquent employee”, the Division Bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Yashwant Varma affirmed.

The Authorities had initiated enquiry proceedings against the petitioner and one constable Jitenderpal Singh based upon the complaint made by certain individuals alleging that the petitioner and Jitenderpal Singh were guilty of extortion of money and that on another date they had entered the premises of Diplomate Furniture and mercilessly beat a man and snatched Rs 1800 from them. 

On the very same night, the two delinquent employees were stated to have entered the house of another man in an inebriated state and snatched his watch and purse containing Rs 500. In light of the allegations which were made, the petitioners came to be dismissed with the respondents invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.

Aggrieved by the dismissal order, both the delinquent employees preferred appeals. When the matter was remanded the matter and pursuant to the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner and Jitenderpal Singh came to be reinstated in service. The department enquiry thereafter ensued and a chargesheet came to be issued against the employees. The Enquiry Officer on culmination of those proceedings submitted a report finding that the employees were guilty of the charges as laid and a dismissal order was passed.

Appeals filed against this decision were rejected by the Appellate Authority.Later, though the Tribunal allowed Jitenderpal’s application but the petitioner’s application was dismissed. When the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition with the contention of the Tribunal having taken conflicting views emanating from the introduction of the preliminary enquiry report and the judgments rendered by coordinate benches of the Tribunal filed by Jitenderpal Singh and the petitioner respectively, the Court granted the petitioner the liberty to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the case of the petitioner could not be said to be similar or identical to that of Jitenderpal Singh. It was in this backdrop that the instant writ petition came to be preferred before this Court.

Noting that the petitioner had failed to establish before this Court that the preliminary enquiry report constituted the foundation for the ultimate conclusions that came to be recorded by the Enquiry Officer on the merits of the charge, the Bench also considered the fact that  the veracity of the charges which were leveled against the petitioner were tried and found to be proved on the basis of independent evidence which was led in the course of disciplinary proceedings.

Clarifying that the petitioner had woefully failed to establish any perversity or inaccurateness in the findings which had come to be recorded by the Tribunal, the Bench was of the opinion that  the petitioner had not been discriminated by the respondents bearing in mind the fact that in the case of Jitenderpal Singh also ultimately orders of dismissal came to be passed.

Hence, the Bench dismissed the writ petition.