-Report by Shagun Sharma
Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition in the case of Jitinder Tiwar vs. Union of India and Ors. filed against the departmental proceedings. The bench consists of the HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE and the HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD.
FACTS
The petitioner was serving as a Sub Inspector of Police. He, along with one Om Prakash Ahlawat, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The allegations leveled against the petitioner and Om Prakash Ahlawat reveal that while posted at Police Station Paschim Vihar they detained Smt. Santosh Jain and Smt. Anita Jain along with her two minor children in the absence of any male family member of the family.
The action was taken by the petitioner as well as Om Prakash Ahlawat based upon a complaint filed by Smt. Meenu Jain. They had ignored the earlier complaint of Smt. Santosh Jain and her PCR calls, and action were taken against her. They were allegedly humiliated and threatened to vacate the house. Due to such treatment, Smt. Santosh Jain fell sick and she was hospitalized at Muni Maya Ram Jain Hospital, Pitampura. The Petitioner accompanied Smt. Meenu Jain to
Flat No. GH-9/149, Paschim Vihar in the absence of the owner Smt. Santosh Jain and her family, permitted her to take possession of the house by breaking the locks.
The petitioner also got an FIR registered under Sections 341, 506 and 34 IPC at Police Station Paschim Vihar against Smt. Santosh Jain and her family without proper verification. Based upon the complaint made by Smt. Santosh Jain, a charge sheet was issued on 12.11.2002 keeping in view the Delhi Police Establishment Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1980. The imputation of misconduct was issued against the Petitioner.
After examining the prosecution witnesses and the defense witnesses, the Enquiry Officer submitted its report in the matter. The disciplinary authority furnished a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner as well as the other charged official. A final order was passed by the disciplinary authority on 23.11.2006. The disciplinary authority has inflicted punishment of forfeiture of 2 years of approved service permanently and entailing a proportionate reduction in pay of both Jitinder Tiwari (the present petitioner) and Om Prakash Ahlawat.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION
The petitioner and the other charged official preferred an appeal in the matter and the appeal was dismissed by a speaking order. Then only the petitioner challenged the order of punishment and the co-charged official has not preferred any writ petition before the Tribunal. The petitioner stated that he has brought on record the entire evidence and the evidence does not establish the guilt of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued before this Court that the departmental inquiry was not completed within 3 months, as required under Standing Order Number 125/01, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi and, therefore, the entire proceedings and the subsequent punishment order stands vitiated.
He has also argued that some of the statements of the prosecution witnesses which were recorded during preliminary
the inquiry were accepted and relied upon in the departmental inquiry. Learned counsel has also minutely scanned the evidence before this Court and it was vehemently argued that the complaint submitted by Smt. Santosh Jain was a concocted complaint and was only to harass and humiliate the petitioner and the other charged official.
COURT’S DECISION
The High Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj, (2020) 3 SCC 423 wherein the scope of interference in departmental enquiries was discussed. The court observed:
“In the present case, the evidence on record establishes the guilt of the Petitioner and in absence of violation of principles of natural justice and fair play or any procedural irregularity, the interference by this Court does not
arise.”
The court held that the departmental enquiry was according to the procedure laid in Delhi Police Establishment Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1980. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.