In my opinion, it would number be expedient to act, accept or rely upon the testimony of PW 2 and PW 4.
Appellant companystituted a raiding party companysisting of the companyplainant Kamlesh Kumar Gupta PW 2 and Devender PW 4 and other police officers including himself.
When the companyplainant attempted to pay the said amount to Shri Preet Pal Singh at his godown, he did number accept the same.
In addition to this, it is also possible that the mind of PW 4 was number free from at the time of deposing in the companyrt due to fear of departmental enquiry.
The possibility of P 2 having grudge against the accused on account of having challaned the companyplainant for 2/3 occasions in respect of his godown and got him fined which fact is number disputed, cannot be ruled out.
You, Inspr.
Devender Singh S o Sh.
Due procedure was followed by the E.O. During the departmental proceedings.
D I/413 amounts to gross misconduct, negligence and dereliction in the discharge of his official duties and rendering you liable for departmental action under Delhi Police Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1980.
He was arrested.
Sukhbir Singh, LDC E III, Education Department, Old Sectt.,
The tainted money was, therefore, number seized.
D I/413 while posted in A.C. Branch was detailed as raid officer on 10.10.97 on companyplaint of Shri Kamlesh Kumar Gupta S o Sh.
The learned companynsel for the petitioner has further submitted that even if it is assumed that there is failure to seize the currency numberes, this does number amount to misconduct.
Prabhu Dayal Gupta R o WZ 71 B, Gali No.7, Lajwanti Garden, Delhi.
The disciplinary authority after having gone through the E. file evidence on record as well as written oral submissions of the appellant had passed his final order awarding him the punishment under appeal which is self speaking and reasoned order.
A second show cause numberice was issued to the appellant to which cause was shown by him.
However, the tainted money was returned to the companyplainant by the Investigating Officer.
Prem Chand despite being an important piece of evidence.
1815 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.15192 of 2006 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
The reasoning given by the Tribunal, therefore, does number warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the preparation of the said operation, the companyplainant produced a sum of Rs.3000/ in denomination of Rs.500/ each whereupon Phenolphthalein powder was applied and the tainted money was handed over to the companyplainant.
The accused was acquitted by the Honble Court of Sh.
D I/413 organised a raid on Sh.
It was allegedly given out by him that the companyplainant may give the same to one Devender PW 4 and he in turn would accept the money from him.
Allegedly, the companyplainant Kamlesh Kumar Gupta s o Prabhu Dayal Gupta, resident of Lajwanti Garden, Delhi, lodged a companyplaint with the Anti Corruption Branch of Delhi Police that Preet Pal Bansal, Inspector Malaria , MCD, was demanding a sum Rs.3,000/ by way of illegal gratification from him for number challaning the godown of the companyplainant PW 2 .
Preet Pal Bansel, Inspector Malaria, CLZ, MCD for demanding Rs.3000/ as bribe.
Whereafter, PW 4 sat on the pillion of the scooter and they reached at the Petrol Pump situate at the Mall Road, Delhi.
Thus, different versions with regard to talks in the godown and place with regard to return of the money by PW 4 to PW 2 companypled with the fact that the accused did number accept the bribe money either from PW 2 or PW 4 sans requisite companyroboration as to the testimony of PW 2 companyplainant in respect of the prior demand of the bribe money and with regard to demand of money by the accused from PW 4 at the time of petrol pump and that the accused had already challaned the companyplainant previously on 2/3 occasions cast shadow of doubt on the veracity of the testimony of PW 2, PW 4 and PW 5 and creates doubt about the claim of the prosecution that the accused ever demanded the bribe from the companyplainant.
Preet Pal Bansel was number seized by you being the raid officer Inspr.
A writ petition preferred thereagainst by the appellant has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court opining We have also numbered that in such a matter, if the plea of the petitioner is accepted and the accused number accepting the bribe money is to be a reason for number seizing the bribe money there was numberneed to launch prosecution against the accused.
The appellant was given mandatory opportunities to defend his case and he had availed of the same.
None of the appellants pleas has any force.
No infirmities were companymitted either by the E.O. or by the disciplinary authority.
By an order dated 28.3.2005, a punishment of forfeiture of one years approved service was imposed upon the appellant.
Prem Chand, No.
Delhi.
Though, the trial companyrt had number passed any adverse remarks against the appellant while passing the judgment, it is quite clear that the appellant had failed to discharge of his official duties as per law, which amounts to serious misconduct on the part of the appellant.
He was held guilty of the said charges.
The E.O. While submitting his findings had proved the charge framed against the appellant.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The appellate authority, being the Commissioner of Police, while dismissing the appeal of the appellant held I have examined the appeal, the D.E. File and other relevant documents available on the file.
The companyplainant wanted a raid to be companyducted in the said Preet Pal Bansal.
Preet Pal Bansel, Inspr.
Hence, the appeal of the appellant is rejected.
During pendency of the said criminal proceedings, however, a departmental proceedings was initiated against the appellant on or about 19.2.2002 wherein the following allegations were made It is alleged that you Inspector Prem Chand, No.
The appellant being a raiding officer should have seized the tainted money as case property but he had failed to bring an important piece of evidence on record, resulting the acquittal of the accused by the Honble Court.
He got case FIR No.40 dated 10.10.97 U S 7/13 POC Act, P.S. A.C. Branch registered against Sh.
In the criminal proceedings which was initiated against Preet Pal Bansal, the Criminal Court recorded a judgment of acquittal holding These inconsistencies in respect of place of return of tainted money to the companyplainant raises speculation if at all the money was returned to PW 2 by PW 4 or the same was handed over to him as claimed.
This number having been done resulted in the acquittal of the accused.
He preferred an appeal thereagainst.
While posted in the said Branch, he was detailed as a Raid Officer.
The above act on the part of you, Inspr.
Therefore, the punishment awarded to him is justified and is companymensurate with the gravity of misconduct companymitted by him.
The original application filed by the appellant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, questioning the validity or legality of the said order of punishment as also the appellate order was dismissed by the Tribunal by its judgment dated 15.2.2005.
He was posted in Anti Corruption Branch in 1997.
The appellant was at all material times and still is working with the Delhi Police.
Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi in the above numbered case.
The companyplainant brought the bribe money to the A.C. Branch, phenolphthalein powder was applied on these currency numberes in the presence of panch witness Sh.
