http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: KULDEEP SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/12/1998

BENCH: S.SAGHIR AHMAD, & S.P. KURDUKAR.,

JUDGMENT:

--------

S.SAGHIR AHMAD --------------

       Leave granted.

       The appellant, a constable 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.  Commissioner of Police by his order dated 22.07.1991. 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.

       A  writ  Petition  filed before the Delhi High Court against this judgment was dismissed  on  19.09.1997  as  not 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. Union of India & Others, AIR  1997  SC  1125 = (1997) 3 SCC 261, in which it was held that a  writ  petition  against  the  order  passed  by  the Tribunal,  constituted  under  the  Administrative Tribunal, Act, 1985, would be maintainable  (prospectively)  before  a High   Court.  The  Review  Application  filed  against  the judgment of the Tribunal was dismissed on 26.05.1997.

       Learned counsel for the appellant has contended 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  contended that  there  was  no  evidence worth the name to sustain the charge framed  against  the  appellant  and  therefore,  the findings  are  perverse particularly as no reasonable person could have come to  these  findings  on  the  basis  of  the evidence brought on record.

       Learned counsel appearing  on  behalf  of  Union  of India has, on the other hand, contended that the enquiry was held  in  consonance  with the principles of natural justice and during the course of the enquiry, full  opportunity  was given to  the  appellant  to  defend  himself.    As far the evidence is concerned, it is contended  that  though  it  is true  that  none  of  the  complainant  was  examined but on account of Rule 16(3) of the Delhi Police (F&A) Rules, 1980,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

it was not required to produce the complainant in person  as the  Rule  itself  contemplated  that  in  the  absence of a witness whose presence could not be procured  without  undue delay, inconvenience or expense, his statement, already made on  an  earlier  occasion,  could be placed on record in the departmental enquiry and the matter could be decided on that basis.  It was under  this  Rule  that  the  previous  joint statement  of the complainants was brought on record without examining any of them.  Learned counsel for the  respondents contended  that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is extremely narrow  and  limited.    The  court cannot,  it  is  contended,  re-examine  or  re-appraise the evidence and substitute its own conclusion in place  of  the conclusions  arrived  at  by  the  Enquiry  Officer  or  the disciplinary authority on that evidence.

       It  is  no  doubt  true  that  the  High Court under Article 226  or  this  Court  under  Article  32  would  not interfere  with  the  findings  recorded at the departmental enquiry by the disciplinary authority or the Enquiry Officer as a matter of course. The Court cannot sit in  appeal  over those   findings  and  assume  the  role  of  the  Appellate Authority. But this does not mean that  in  no  circumstance can  the  Court  interfere.  The  power  of  judicial review available to the High Court as also to this Court under  the Constitution  takes  in  its  stride the domestic enquiry as well and it  can  interfere  with  the  conclusions  reached therein  if there was no evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded were  such  as  could  not  have  been reached  by  an  ordinary  prudent  man or the findings were perverse or made at the dictate of the superior authority.

       In Nand  Kishore  vs.    State of Bihar, AIR 1978 SC 1277 = (1978) 3 SCC 366 = 1978 (3) SCR 708, it was held that the disciplinary proceedings before a domestic Tribunal  are of  quasi-judicial character and, therefore, it is necessary that the Tribunal should arrive at its  conclusions  on  the basis of some evidence, that is to say, such evidence which, and  that  too,  with some degree of definiteness, points to the guilt of the delinquent and does not leave the matter in a suspicious state as mere suspicion cannot take  the  place of proof  even  in domestic enquiries.  If, therefore, there is no evidence to sustain the  charges  framed  against  the delinquent, he cannot be held to be guilty as in that event, the findings  recorded  by  the  Enquiry  Officer  would  be perverse.

       The findings, recorded in a domestic enquiry, can be characterised as perverse if it is shown that such a finding is not supported by any evidence on record or is  not  based on  the  evidence  adduced  by  the parties or no reasonable person could have come to those findings on the basis of the that evidence.  This principle was laid down by  this  Court in State of  Andhra  Pradesh vs.  Sree Rama Rao.  1964 2 LLJ 150 = AIR 1963 SC 1723 = 1964  (3)  SCR  25,  in  which  the question  was  whether  the  High  Court, under Article 226, could  interfere  with  the   findings   recorded   at   the departmental enquiry.  This decision was followed in Central Bank of India vs.  Prakash Chand Jain, 1969 2 LLJ 377 (SC) = AIR 1969  SC  983  and  Bharat  Iron  Works  vs.   Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel & Ors.  1976 Labour & Industrial Cases 4 (SC) = AIR 1976 SC 98 = 1976 (2) SCR 280 = (1976) 1 SCC 518.   In Rajinder Kumar  Kindra  vs.    Delhi  Administration through Secretary (Labour) and Others.  AIR 1984 SC 1805 = 1985  (1) SCR  866 = (1984) 4 SCC 635, it was laid down that where the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

findings of misconduct are based on no  legal  evidence  and the conclusion is one to which no reasonable man could come, the findings  can be rejected as perverse.  It was also laid down that where a quasi-judicial tribunal  records  findings based  on  no  legal  evidence and the findings are his mere ipse dixit or based on conjectures and surmises, the enquiry suffers from the additional infirmity of non-application  of mind and stands vitiated.

       Normally  the  High  Court  and this Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if  the  finding  of  "guilt"  is  based  on  no evidence,  it  would  be  a  perverse  finding  and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny.

       A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between the decisions which are perverse and those which are not.  If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which  is  thoroughly  unreliable  and  no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse, But if there is some evidence on record which  is  acceptable  and  which could  be  relied  upon, howsoever compendious it may be the conclusions  would  not  be  treated  as  perverse  and  the findings would not be interfered with.

       In  the  light  of  the  above  principles,  let  us scrutinise the case in hand.

       The charge  framed  against  the  appellant  in  the instant case is as under:-

               "You,  Constable  Kuldeep  Singh No.2138/SD.         are hereby charged that while posted at P.P.    Amar         Colony on  22.2.1990.  You kept illegally Rs.200/out         of Rs.  1000/- given  by  the  factory  owner,  Smt.         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.  Shri Rapal Singh         S/O Shri Brahma Nand and Shri Shiv  Kumar  S/O  Shri         Ganga Ram.    All  these  three  laborers had made a         complaint that Smt.  Meena Mishra had stopped  their         payment or Rs.  2200/- for three months.

               The  above  act  your  part amounts to grave         misconduct and unbecoming of a police officers which         renders you, constable Kuldeep Singh No.    2138/SD,         liable  for  punishment  u/s 21 of Delhi Police Act,         1978.

                                       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

1.      Sh.  D.D.  Sharma, Insp.        He will move him         the then S.H.O.  Lajpat         to present.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

       Nagar, 2.      Smt. Meena Mishra R/O           She will depose         A-25, Garhi, Lajpat Nagar,      that she had         Nagar,                          given Rs.1000/-                                         to Ct. Kuldeep                                         Singh        on                                         22.2.1990   for                                         payment  to   3                                         laborers    and                                         Constable   had                                         kept        Rs.                                         200/with him. 3.      Sh. 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. Etah (U.P.)              Radhey Shyam                                         had   gone    to                                         factory    A-25,                                         Garhi  with  Ct.                                         kuldeep    Singh                                         for   settlement                                         of  payment  and                                         he  kept  Rs.200                                         with him.

4.      Radhey Sham S/O Phool         Vash R/o Distt. Etah         Village Bulal Puri                 --do--         U.P. at present H.No.         74 Main Market Garhi         Lajpat Nagar.

                                       SO/DE Cell"

       The    list   of   documents,   indicated   in   the charge-sheet, was:-

List of documents. -----------------

1.      Copy of report of SHO/Lajpat Nagar, dated 5.3.1990         against Constable Kuldeep Singh No.2138/SD.

2.      Copy of Laborers Statement.

                                      SO/DE Cell."

       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 at A-25, Garhi, Lajpat Nagar, and had not 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.  The appellant along with the aforesaid laborers went to  the  factory  owner  who  gave  Rs.   1000/- to the appellant  for  payment  to  the  three  laborers  but   the appellant  did  not  pay the whole of the amount to them and instead gave them only Rs.  800/-, keeping an amount of  Rs. 200/- in his own pocket.

       In  order  to  prove  this  charge,  the  Department examined  Inspector D.D. Sharma, SHO, P.S. Lajpat Nagar; and Smt. Meena Mishra. Their statements have been reproduced  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

copious  details  in  the  findings submitted by the Enquiry Officer, a copy of which has been placed on the record.

       Smt.   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.  She stated.  that she had paid Rs.  563/- to Rajpal; Rs.211/- to Shiv Kumar and another sum of Rs.  808/- jointly to  Radhey  Shyam  and  Rajpal.    She stated that  she  had  not  paid Rs.  1000/- to Kuldeep Sing (appellant)  on  22.2.1990,  as  she  had  asked  the  three laborers  to  come 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.

       Inspector D.D.  Sharma, who  was,  at  the  relevant time.  posted as  S.H.O.    P.S.    Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. stated that he had received a complaint from  Radhey  Shyam, Rajpal Singh  and  Shiv  Kumar.    They were summoned to the Police Post, Amar Colony where the contents of the complaint were verified from them and their statement was recorded.

No  other  witness was examined on behalf of the Department, not even the complainants, Rajpal Singh  and  Radhey  Shyam, though  their  names  were mentioned in the charge-sheet for being examined as witnesses against the appellant.

       The  appellant  examined  one  of  the complainants, namely, Shiv Kumar in defence who  supported  the  appellant that Smt. Meena Mishra had not made any payment on 22.2.1990 but  had  called  him  and  two  other complainants, 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  constable  Shoukat  Ali who  was  posted,  at the relevant time, at Police Post Amar Colony.  He stated that Radhey Shyam, Shiv Kumar and  Rajpal Singh  had  come  to  the  Police  Post  to make a complaint against Smt.  Meena Mishra that she had not paid them  their salary.   This constable directed them to meet the Emergency Officer, ASI Bhopal Singh who sent the appellant  with  them to Smt.  Meena Mishra.  The appellant came back and informed ASI Bhopal  Singh  that Smt.  Meena Mishra had agreed to pay the amount due from her to these three persons after  a  few days.

       ASI  Jagdish  Prasad  and ASI Bhopal Singh, who were also examined in defence, corroborated the  above  statement of constable Shoukat Ali.

       ASI Bhopal Singh further stated that  the  appellant was deputed  by  him  to  go  to Smt.  Meena Mishra with the complainants and the the appellant, on his return  from  the factory, told him that Smt.  Meena Mishra had agreed to make payment to  the  three  laborers  a  few  days  later.   The witness, however, stated that all  the  three  laborers  had come 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.  This statement was placed on the record before the Enquiry Officer.

       This  was  the  entire  evidence  produced  at   the domestic enquiry.

       What immediately strikes the mind is that Smt. Meena

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

Mishra, who is alleged to have paid the amount of Rs. 1000/- to the appellant, stated in clear terms as a witness for the Department,  that  she  had  not  made  any  payment  to the appellant. This payment is not proved in any other manner as none of the three recipients of the above amount,  who  were the  complainants,  has  been  produced  at the departmental enquiry, though two of them, namely, Radhey Shyam and Rajpal Singh were proposed to be examined.

       Non-production of the complainants is sought  to  be justified  with  reference to Rule 16(3) of the Delhi Police (F&A) Rules, 1980. Rule 18(3) is an under:-

       "If the accused police officer does  not  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.  As         far as possible  the  witnesses  shall  be  examined         direct and in the presence of the accused, who shall         be   given   opportunity  to  take  notes  of  their         statements and corssexamine them.    The  E.O.    is         empowered,  however,  to bring on record the earlier         statement of any witness whose presence  cannot,  in         the  opinion  of  such  officer  be procured without         undue  delay,  inconvenience  or  expense  necessary         provided that it has been recorded and attested by a         police  officer  superior  in  rank  to  the accused         officer or by a Magistrate and is either  signed  by         the  person  making  it or has been recorded by such         officer  during  an  investigation  or  a   judicial         enquiry or  trial.   The statements and documents so         brought on record in  the  departmental  proceedings         shall  also  be  read out to the accused officer and         shall  be  given  an  opportunity  to  take   notes,         Unsigned  statements shall be brought on record only         through recording the statements of the  officer  or         Magistrate  who  had  recorded  the statement of the         witness concerned.  The accused shall  be  bound  to         answer any questions which the E.O.  may deem fit to         put  to  him  with  a  view to elucidating the facts         referred to in  the  statements  or  documents  thus         brought on record."

       This Rule, which  lays  down  the  procedure  to  be followed  in  the  departmental  enquiry,  itself postulates examination of all the witnesses  in  the  presence  of  the accused   who   is  also  to  be  given  an  opportunity  to crossexamine them.  In case, the  presence  of  any  witness cannot  be  procured  without  undue delay, inconvenience or expense, his previous statement could be brought  on  record subject  to  the  condition  that the previous statement was recorded and attested by a police officer superior  in  rank than the  delinquent.  If such statement was recorded by the Magistrate and attested by him then also it could be brought or record.  The further requirement is  that  the  statement either  should  have  been  signed  by the person concerned, namely, the person who has made that statement,  or  it  was recorded  during  an  investigation or a judicial enquiry or trial.  The Rule further provides  that  unsigned  statement shall  be  brought  on  record  only  through the process of examining the Officer or  the  Magistrate  who  had  earlier recorded  the  statement of the witness whose presence could not be procured.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

       Rule 16(3) is almost akin to Sections 32 and  33  of the  Evidence  Act.  Before  the  Rule  can  be invoked, the factors enumerated therein, namely, that the presence of the witness   cannot   be   procured   without   undue    delay, inconvenience or expense, have to be found to be existing as they constitute the condition-precedent" for the exercise of jurisdiction  for  this  purpose.  In  the  absence of these factors,  the  jurisdiction  under  Rule  16(3)  cannot   be exercised.

       Rajpal Singh and Radhey Shyam, who were the original complainants  along  with  Shiv Kumar, were not examined and the Enquiry Officer, regarding their absence, has stated  in his report as under:-

               "The two prosecution witnessess Rajpal Singh         and  Radhya  Shyam  have not attended to proceeding.         They have not been found  residing  in  their  vill.         now and it had come to notice that the defaulter has         managed  their  disappearance  and  has settled them         some where in Devli Khanpur and  also  has  arranged         their  employment but the addresses of those PWs are         not known.  Such is the  act  of  the  defaulter  to         create  his  defence  and  is an attempt to hide his         misconduct.  Though their complaint Ex.  PW-1/A  has         been  exhibited  and  has  been  taken  on  file  to         ascertain the facts and for natural justice.

       This   will   show   that   the   blame   for    the non-availability of these two witnesses has been laid on the appellant  who  was  already  under suspension and it is not understandable as to how  and  on  what  basis  or  on  what material,  the  Enquiry  Officer came to the conclusion that the appellant was responsible for their disappearance or had procured employment for them in Devli Khanpur.   If  it  was known  to  the  Enquiry  Officer that they were available in Devli Khanpur, was any attempt made to contact them at Devli Khanpur or to bring them to  the  enquiry  proceedings  from that  place,  is not indicated by the Enquiry Officer in his report making it obvious that the factors necessary for  the exercise  of  jurisdiction under Rule 16(3) were not present and it was not open to the Enquiry  Officer  to  have  taken recourse  to  this  Rule  to  bring  on  record the previous statement of the complainants which allegedly  was  recorded by Inspector D.D.  Sharma.  Moreover, the so-called previous statement  itself of the complainants appears to be a highly suspicious document for the reason that S.H.O., D.D.  Sharma had stated before the Enquiry Officer that he had received a complaint of  Radhey  Shyam,  Rajpal  Sing  and  Shiv  Kumar whereupon  all  the  three  persons were summoned by him and after  verifying  the  facts  from  those  complainants  had recorded  their  statement  which  he  had  dictated  to ASI Jagdish Prasad.  There were, therefore, two documents:

       (i)     The original complaint made by the aforesaid         three persons:

       (ii)     The statement of these persons, recorded by         ASI Jagdish Prasad, at the dictation of S.H.O., D.D.         Sharma, after verifying the facts, set  out  in  the         complaint, from these persons.         complaint, from these persons.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

       (1) The original complaint was  not  placed  on  the record  and  it  was the statement, recorded by S.H.O., D.D. Sharma, which was produced before the Enquiry Officer.   The absence  of  original  complaint,  therefore, indicates that there was, in fact, no complaint in existence which  further supports  the  statement  of  Department’s  own witness Smt. Meena Mishra that no payment was made by her on 22.02.1990.

       Apart   from   the  above,  Rule  16(3)  has  to  be considered in the  light  of  the  provisions  contained  in Article  311(2)  of  the Constitution to find out whether it purports to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the delinquent.  Reasonable opportunity contemplated by  Article 311(2)  means "Hearing" in accordance with the principles of natural justice under which one of the basic requirements is that all the witnesses in the departmental enquiry shall  be examined  in  the  presence  of  the delinquent who shall be given an  opportunity  to  cross-examine  them.    Where   a statement  previously  made  by a witness, either during the course of preliminary enquiry or investigation, is  proposed to be brought on record in the departmental proceedings, the law  as  laid  down  by  this  Court  is that a copy of that statement should first be supplied to  the  delinquent,  who should  thereafter  be given an opportunity to cross-examine that witness.

       In State of Mysore vs.  Shiv Basappa 1963(2) SCR 943 = AIR 1963 SC 375, the  witness  was  not  examined  in  the presence    of    the    delinquent    so    far    as   his examination-in-chief was concerned and it was  his  previous statement  recorded at an earlier stage which was brought on record.   That  statement  was  put  to  the   witness   who acknowledged having  made  that  statement.  The witness was thereafter offered for cross-examination  and  it  was  held that  although  the statement (examination-in-chief) was not recorded in  the  presence  of  the  delinquent,  since  the witness  had  been  offered  for  cross-examination after he acknowledged having made the previous statement,  the  rules of natural justice were sufficiently complied with.

       In Kasoram Cotton Mills Ltd.  vs.  Gangadhar 1964(2) SCR 809 = AIR 1964 SC 708 AND State of U.P.  vs.  Om Prakash Gupta, AIR 1970 SC 679, the above principles were reiterated and it was laid down that if a  previous  statement  of  the witness  was  intended  to be brought on record, it could be done provided the witness was offered for  cross-examination by the delinquent.

       Having  regard to the law as set out above, and also having regard to the fact that the factors set out  in  Rule 16(3)  of  the Delhi Police (F&A) Rules, 1980, did not exist with the result that Rule 16(3) itself could not be invoked, we are of the opinion that the Enquiry Officer was not right in bringing on record the so-called  previous  statement  of witnesses Radhey Shyam and Rajpal Singh.

       It  will  be   noticed   that   there   were   three complainants  but  only two, namely, Radhey Shyam and Rajpal Singh were proposed to be examined.  Why was not  the  third complainant, Shiv  Kumar,  proposed  to  be  examined?   The reason becomes obvious  from  the  fact  that  when  he  was examined  as  a  Defence  witness,  he  fully  supported the appellant by stating that no payment was made by Smt.  Meena Mishra on that date.  But he was held by the Enquiry Officer to be an impostor on the  ground  that  he  had  not  proved

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

himself  to  be  actual  Shiv Kumar. The Enquiry Officer has observed as under:-

       "DW 1, Sh.  Shiv Kumar is a prepared witness and has         not proved himself to be actual Shiv Kumar.  This DW         1  has denied that he had visited the police station         and had never met with SHO.  Moreover he has  denied         to have  signed  EX  PW-A/A.    He  had not made any         complaint to  the  SHO.    His  version   has   been         contradicted  by ASI Jagdish Prasad, DW-4 the writer         of this complaint Ex PW-1/A.  Both  these  defaulter         himself.   So  the statement of DW-1, Shiv Kumar has         not been relied upon because he is not  actual  Shiv         Kumar  who  is  a  complainant in this case and is a         false person who has been produce by the defaulter."

       The reasons why he has been held to be  an  impostor or  a  false  person have not been indicated. The finding in this regard is wholly arbitrary and perverse.

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.  The Addl. 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.

       From the findings recorded separately by the  Deputy Commissioner  of  Police,  it  would  appear that there is a voucher indicating payment of Rs.  1000/- to  Rajpal  Singh, one of  the  labourers,  on  8th  of  February,  1990.  This document was not mentioned in the chargesheet in which  only two  documents  were  proposed to be relied upon against the appellant, namely, copy of  the  report  of  S.H.O.,  Lajpat Nagar dated 5th of March, 1990 against the appellant and the copy of  the  labourers’  statement.    This  document  has, therefore, to be excluded from consideration as it could not have been relied  upon  or  even  referred  to  by  the  Dy. Commissioner of  Police.   Moreover, according to the charge framed against the appellant, payment was  made  on  22.2.90 and  not  on  08.02.90  as  indicated  in  the  voucher and, therefore,  voucher,  for  this  reason  also,  has  to   be excluded.

       To   sum   up,  the  charge  against  the  appellant consisted of two components, namely :

       (a)   On 22.2.90 Smt. Meena Mishra paid  Rs.  1000/-         to  the  appellant  for  being  paid  to  the  three         labourers.

       (b)   Appellant paid Rs. 800/- to labourers and kept         Rs. 200/- with himself.

       Smt. Meena Mishra, appearing as a  witness  for  the Department,  denied having made any payment to the appellant on that day. The labourers to whom the payment  is  said  to have  been  made  have  not  been  produced  at the domestic enquiry. Their so-called previous statement could  not  have been  brought on record under Rule 16(3). As such, there was absolutely no evidence  in  support  of  the  charge  framed against  the  appellant  and the entire findings recorded by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

the Enquiry Officer are vitiated by reason of the fact  that they  are  not  supported  by any evidence on record and are wholly perverse.

       The Enquiry Officer did not sit with an open mind to hold  an  impartial  domestic  enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also  that of  "Reasonable Opportunity", contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution.  The "Bias" in favour of the Department had so badly affected the Enquiry Officer’s whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the  complainants  was ascribed  to  the  appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department.  Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in  Devli  Khanpur,  their  presence could  have  been procured and they could have been produced before the  Enquiry  Officer  to  prove  the  charge  framed against the  appellant.   He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such  a  coarse manner  that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out the command  from  some  superior  officer  who  perhaps directed "fix him up".

       For  the  reasons  stated  above,  the  appeals  are allowed.   The judgment and order dated 28th February, 1997, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, is set aside. The  order  dated  3rd  of  May,  1991,  passed  by   Deputy Commissioner  of Police by which the appellant was dismissed from service as also the order passed  in  appeal  by  Addl. Commissioner  of  Police are quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant with  all  consequential benefits  including  all the arrears of pay up-to-date which shall be paid within three months from today.   There  will, however, be no order as to costs.