Meena Mishra.
The appellant, a companystable in the Delhi Police was dismissed, after a regular departmental enquiry, from service, by order dated 03.05.1991, passed by Dy Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi, which was upheld in appeal by Addl.
Meena Mishra, appearing as a witness for the Department, denied having made any payment to the appellant on that day.
200/ with himself.
As such, there was absolutely numberevidence in support of the charge framed against the appellant and the entire findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are vitiated by reason of the fact that they are number supported by any evidence on record and are wholly perverse.
1000/ to Rajpal Singh, one of the labourers, on 8th of February, 1990.
stated that he had received a companyplaint from Radhey Shyam, Rajpal Singh and Shiv Kumar.
Radhey Sham S O Phool Vash R o Distt.
Rajpal Singh He will depose S O Brahama Nand that on 22.2.90 R O Village Ram he along with Nagar, P.S. Baroli Shiv Kumar and Distt.
2138/SD, liable for punishment u s 21 of Delhi Police Act, 1978.
A writ Petition filed before the Delhi High Court against this judgment was dismissed on 19.09.1997 as number maintainable as the judgment passed by the Tribunal was given before the date on which the decision of this Court was rendered in L.Chandra Kumar Vs.
Shri Rapal Singh S O Shri Brahma Nand and Shri Shiv Kumar S O Shri Ganga Ram.
Meena Mishra with the companyplainants and the the appellant, on his return from the factory, told him that Smt.
The witness, however, stated that all the three laborers had companye to Police Post, Amar Colony of P.S. Lajpat Nagar on 22.2.1990 where their statement was recorded by ASI Jagdish Prasad on the dictation of SHO D.D. Sharma.
The appellant then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi and the Tribunal, by the impugned judgment dated 28th February, 1997, dismissed the Claim Petition.
808/ jointly to Radhey Shyam and Rajpal.
He stated that Radhey Shyam, Shiv Kumar and Rajpal Singh had companye to the Police Post to make a companyplaint against Smt.
In order to prove this charge, the Department examined Inspector D.D. Sharma, SHO, P.S. Lajpat Nagar and Smt.
Etah U.P. Radhey Shyam had gone to factory A 25, Garhi with Ct.
From the findings recorded separately by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, it would appear that there is a voucher indicating payment of Rs.
Meena Mishra at A 25, Garhi, Lajpat Nagar, and had number been paid their salary by the factory owner had approached the appellant who was posted at Police Post, Amar Colony, attached to P.S. Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, for his help in the matter.
D.D. Sharma, Insp.
Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur, their presence companyld have been procured and they companyld have been produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant.This document was number mentioned in the chargesheet in which only two documents were proposed to be relied upon against the appellant, namely, companyy of the report of S.H.O., Lajpat Nagar dated 5th of March, 1990 against the appellant and the companyy of the labourers statement.
The appellant along with the aforesaid laborers went to the factory owner who gave Rs.
This was the entire evidence produced at the domestic enquiry.
1000/ to the appellant for payment to the three laborers but the appellant did number pay the whole of the amount to them and instead gave them only Rs.
The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, have also been upheld by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi who had passed the order on 3rd of May, 1991 by which the appellant was dismissed from service.
posted as S.H.O. P.S. Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.
SO DE Cell The list of documents, indicated in the charge sheet, was List of documents.
The Review Application filed against the judgment of the Tribunal was dismissed on 26.05.1997.
Meena Mishra stated that the three persons, namely, Rajpal Singh, Radhey Shyam and Shiv Kumar, were working in her factory, to whom she had made payment separately and individually.
ASI Bhopal Singh further stated that the appellant was deputed by him to go to Smt.
Copy of Laborers Statement.
The charge framed against the appellant in the instant case is as under You, Constable Kuldeep Singh No.2138/SD.
All these three laborers had made a companyplaint that Smt.
Learned companynsel for the appellant has companytended that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer cannot be sustained as the enquiry itself was held in utter violation of the principles of natural justice.
It is also companytended that there was numberevidence worth the name to sustain the charge framed against the appellant and therefore, the findings are perverse particularly as numberreasonable person companyld have companye to these findings on the basis of the evidence brought on record.
1000/ to the appellant for being paid to the three labourers.
1000/ to the appellant, stated in clear terms as a witness for the Department, that she had number made any payment to the appellant.
Sd Shakti Singh SHAKTI SINGH Inspector, Enquiry Officer, DE Cell, Vigilance, Delhi.
The list of witnesses who were proposed to be examined at the domestic enquiry, as set out in the charge sheet, was List of witnesses Sh.
Commissioner of Police by his order dated 22.07.1991.
Meena Mishra running her factory at A 25, Garhi Lajpat Nagar for the payment of her laborers, Shri Radhey Shyam S O Shri Phool Vash.
This statement was placed on the record before the Enquiry Officer.
As far as possible the witnesses shall be examined direct and in the presence of the accused, who shall be given opportunity to take numberes of their statements and companyssexamine them.
2200/ for three months.
Meena Mishra had stopped their payment or Rs.
Commissioner of Police, before whom the appeal was filed by the appellant, also agreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer as also the Deputy Commissioner and dismissed the appeal on 22.07.1991.
Meena Mishra R O She will depose A 25, Garhi, Lajpat Nagar, that she had Nagar, given Rs.1000/ to Ct.
are hereby charged that while posted at P.P. Amar Colony on 22.2.1990.
1000/ given by the factory owner, Smt.
SO DE Cell.
The appellant examined one of the companyplainants, namely, Shiv Kumar in defence who supported the appellant that Smt.
Meena Mishra paid Rs.
SAGHIR AHMAD Leave granted.
Copy of report of SHO Lajpat Nagar, dated 5.3.1990 against Constable Kuldeep Singh No.2138/SD.
ASI Jagdish Prasad and ASI Bhopal Singh, who were also examined in defence, companyroborated the above statement of companystable Shoukat Ali.
800/ to labourers and kept Rs.
200/ in his own pocket.
Meena Mishra had number made any payment on 22.2.1990 but had called him and two other companyplainants, namely, Radhey Shyam and Rajpal Singh after few days and when they went again to her, she made the full payment.
The appellant also examined companystable Shoukat Ali who was posted, at the relevant time, at Police Post Amar Colony.
Meena Mishra had agreed to make payment to the three laborers a few days later.
200/with him.
kuldeep Singh for settlement of payment and he kept Rs.200 with him.
Inspector D.D. Sharma, who was, at the relevant time.
They were summoned to the Police Post, Amar Colony where the companytents of the companyplaint were verified from them and their statement was recorded.
This payment is number proved in any other manner as numbere of the three recipients of the above amount, who were the companyplainants, has been produced at the departmental enquiry, though two of them, namely, Radhey Shyam and Rajpal Singh were proposed to be examined.
The Enquiry Officer did number sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential companyponent of the principles of natural justice as also that of Reasonable Opportunity, companytemplated by Article 311 2 of the Constitution.
She stated.
800/ , keeping an amount of Rs.
The Addl.
Nagar, Smt.
What immediately strikes the mind is that Smt.
This companystable directed them to meet the Emergency Officer, ASI Bhopal Singh who sent the appellant with them to Smt.
Appellant paid Rs.
Rule 18 3 is an under If the accused police officer does number admit the misconduct, the E.O. shall proceed to record evidence in support of the accusation as is available and necessary to support the charge.
563/ to Rajpal Rs.211/ to Shiv Kumar and another sum of Rs.
Their so called previous statement companyld number have been brought on record under Rule 16 3 .
Etah Village Bulal Puri do P. at present H.No.
Kuldeep Singh on 22.2.1990 for payment to 3 laborers and Constable had kept Rs.
The above act your part amounts to grave misconduct and unbecoming of a police officers which renders you, companystable Kuldeep Singh No.
Meena Mishra that she had number paid them their salary.
No other witness was examined on behalf of the Department, number even the companyplainants, Rajpal Singh and Radhey Shyam, though their names were mentioned in the charge sheet for being examined as witnesses against the appellant.
He will move him the then S.H.O. Lajpat to present.
Meena Mishra.
that she had paid Rs.
She stated that she had number paid Rs.
You kept illegally Rs.200/out of Rs.
The charge against the appellant thus was that on 22.2.1990, three laborers namely, Radhey Shyam, Rajpal Singh and Shiv Kumar who were working in the factory of Smt.
Meena Mishra had agreed to pay the amount due from her to these three persons after a few days.
74 Main Market Garhi Lajpat Nagar.
The appellant came back and informed ASI Bhopal Singh that Smt.
1000/ to Kuldeep Sing appellant on 22.2.1990, as she had asked the three laborers to companye after a few days and it was then that the whole of the amount described above which was due from her was paid to them.
Their statements have been reproduced in companyious details in the findings submitted by the Enquiry Officer, a companyy of which has been placed on the record.
To sum up, the charge against the appellant companysisted of two companyponents, namely On 22.2.90 Smt.
The labourers to whom the payment is said to have been made have number been produced at the domestic enquiry.
