Therefore, I Manoj Kumar Lal, Deputy Commissioner of Police Ist Bn.
Minutely and meticulously.
He did number make any companyplaint to the higher authorities that the same was extracted from him by force or undue influence.
An identification memo.
The fact that the respondent as an accused in the aforementioned case made a companyfession and had pointed out the place wherefrom he allegedly had stolen two revolvers and one pistol, has, thus, number been disputed.
A departmental appeal preferred thereagainst by him was dismissed by an order dated 09.02.1998.
In agreement of companyclusion by the E.O. I find that charges are proved against the delinquent officer, if is allowed to companytinue in the department like Police, he number only will damage the department by his criminal activities he will also tarnish image of the police department.
The order of discharge was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate after four years from the date of institution of the case.
P.C. and were produced before Court on 6.9.97.
The validity of the said order was questioned by the respondent by filing an application before the Tribunal.
The respondent on the basis of said companyfessional statements was arrested on 05.09.1997.
The respondent had number retracted from the said companyfession.
He was in the meantime dismissed from service without holding any enquiry in terms of the proviso appended to clause 2 of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, by an order dated 09.09.1997.
The Tribunal as also the High Court in their respective judgments opined that the appellant companyld number have taken recourse to clause b of the proviso appended to clause 2 of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
He was arrested in companynection therewith on 30.10.1995.
Narender Singh were arrested by special staff North Distt.
Narender Singh, NO.
Ajit Singh charge you Const.
He remained in judicial custody for a period of 15 days.
Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said judgments and orders, a regular disciplinary proceeding was instituted.
A review petition filed thereagainst was also dismissed by the Tribunal on 31.12.2001.
Const.
A writ petition filed by the Appellant was also dismissed by the High Court on 03.04.2002.
Two persons who were accused therein, inter alia, made companyfessions stating that the respondent had companymitted theft of the said two revolvers and pistol.
27 Arms Act.
Accused had made a Nisandehi inKot and disclosed that on the night between 22/23.6.97 at about 2 to 5 am he along with other accused had stolen 2 revolvers and 1 pistol.
A departmental proceeding was initiated against him in relation to the same incident.
In the meantime, two revolvers and one pistol were found from the Vijay Ghat Armoury.
P.S. Narela, Delhi.
The above act on your part amounts to grave misconduct and unbecoming of a police officer which renders you liable to be dealt under the provisions of Delhi Police Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1987.
The applicant had made a Nisandehi in Kot and disclosed that on the intervening night of 22/23.6.1997 had stolen the fire arms.
By an order dated 23.07.1996, the said original application was disposed of by the Tribunal upon issuing some directions.
In view of the fact that apart from companyfession of the accused, there was numberother material on records, the respondent was discharged from the criminal case by an order dated 01.08.2001.
Narender Singh Kot munshi .
Inspector Tej Pal Singh, PW 12 had further appeared and testified that he had investigated the matter.
The Tribunal allowed the said application by an order dated 08.08.2001 holding that the Appellant failed to establish sufficient grounds for dismissing the respondent from service without holding any disciplinary proceeding.
730/DAP punishment of dismissal from the service with immediate effect.
While in police custody he also made a companyfession as regards his involvement in the said offence.
Narender Singh No.730/DA that on 04.9.97, Harvinder Singh S o Shri Surat Singh R o Praladpur Gharoli, P.s.
On 01.05.2002, a charge sheet was drawn up against the Respondent which reads as under I, Insp.
PW 8/A has also number been disputed.
He also led the investigating team to the room of the Vijay Ghat Armoury and pointed out the place wherefrom, he while working as a Sentry on the night of 22/23.06.1997, companymitted theft of two revolvers and one pistol with some of his companyleagues.
He filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal for short, the Tribunal for stay of the said proceeding till disposal of the criminal case.
On 5.9.97 u s 41.1 Cr.
His suspension period from 30.10.2001 to date of issue of this order shall be treated as number spent on duty for all intents and purposes.
The memo was prepared and signed by him as well as others including Const.
On or about 16.05.2002, in the said departmental proceeding, the respondent was found guilty and by an order dated 22.07.2002, he was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority, stating I have gone through the record and facts of the file, enquiry report submitted by the E.O., defence taken by the delinquent Const.
The Tribunal in terms of an order dated 24.02.2004 set aside the said order of dismissal, holding Inspector Bhalle Ram had stated that he was posted as Inspector CPR Vijay Ghat.
An original application was filed by the respondent before the Tribunal.
was prepared therefor wherein one Inspector Bhalle Ram was a witness.
An appeal filed thereagainst by the respondent was dismissed by the appellate authority by an order dated 29.05.2003.
A First Information Report was lodged against him on 30.10.1995 for companymission of an offence under Section 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
DAP on being satisfied that charges on the basis of proof available on the record are proved against the def.
Two days PC remand was also obtained by Crime Branch in case FIR No.717/97 u s 409, 380, 457 IPC P.S. Kotwali in which two revolvers and one pistol were stolen from Kot of CPR Vijayghat/1st Bn.
The charges in a disciplinary action are based on preponderance of evidence that does number exclude companyfession made to the police and such companyfessions need number be necessarily supported by recovery of material fact as enumerated in the Indian Evidence Act.
Narender Singh 730/DAP companyfessed that while you were at CPR Vijay Ghat you had companymitted theft of two revolvers and pistol from the kot on intervening night 22/23.6.97 along with Raju, Jasvinder Jassu and Dhannu after stealing keys of Kot from the pillow of Const.
Narender Singh No.612/DAP, 730/DAP posted at CP Vijay Ghat on this you Const.
Both the accused made companyfessions regarding the supply of arms by Const.
and are of such nature that calls for major departmental punishment, I award Const.
B. Sinha, J The respondent was enrolled as a Constable in the Delhi Police on or about 01.08.1994.
On interrogation you Const.
