Sub-Inspector Harish Chander vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others

Sanjiv Khanna, J.—The Petitioner was awarded punishment of withholding of next annual increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect vide order dated 10th November, 2005, which was confirmed in appeal vide order dated 23rd November, 2007. By the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (tribunal, for short) dated 22nd December, 2010 in O.A. No. 2239/2008, the original application filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed. The only contention urged by the Petitioner is that the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the tribunal have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective, specially the defence evidence. It is submitted that the authorities did not take into consideration evidence in support of the Petitioner and have passed a one-sided order. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Union of India and Ors. v. G. Krishna 2005 (3) ATJ 359.

We have gone through the inquiry report and the findings recorded therein. The present case is not one where evidence has been ignored or not given due credence, but where on the principle of preponderance of probabilities the Inquiry Officer and the appellate authorities have recorded their findings against the Petitioner. Some of the evidence/statements have not been accepted or given credibility by giving valid and germane reasons. Tribunal has also examined the said aspect. Statements of some of the witnesses have been taken with a pinch of salt as they were interested witnesses. These include statements of the defence witnesses, including other police personnel and one Prabhu Dayal. The Inquiry Officer, departmental authorities and the tribunal have given their reasons why they were not inclined to accept and rely on the said statements.

Facts on record in brief may be noticed. There were inter se disputes between the two partners, namely, Prabhu Dayal and Bhim Singh. Gaurav Rathore, son of Bhim Singh, it is alleged was taken to Police Station Bara Hindu Rao at the behest of his uncle by the Petitioner and some other policemen on 15th October, 2004. He was mercilessly beaten up by putting a piece of cloth in his mouth and inflicted injuries all over his body. Chili powder was inserted in his anus due to which he became unconscious. At about 3.30 a.m. on 16th October, 2004 Gaurav Rathore was brought back to his house in an unconscious state. On 17th October, 2004, Vandana Rathore wife of Gaurav Rathore took her husband to Bara Hindu Rao Hospital along with some relatives and he was medically examined and MLC was prepared. Gaurav Rathore had appeared as PW-6 and had reiterated the said facts. PW-7, Vandana Rathore, wife of Gaurav Rathore, had also appeared and had reiterated the facts that her husband was taken to the police station and he came back on 16th October, 2004 at 3 a.m. at night and at that time his condition was very bad. He was taken to the hospital on 17th October, 2004 and MLC was prepared. She had also stated that she had made a written complaint of two pages on 17th October, 2004 giving full details.

The contention of the Petitioner why Gaurav Rathore was not admitted to the hospital on 16th October, 2004 was considered and has been dealt with. PW-7, Vandana Rathore, had explained that her father had suffered brain hemorrhage in the morning and she had not made any police complaint earlier but once the condition of Gaurav Rathore worsened, he was taken to the hospital. She was also afraid that her husband may be implicated in a false case. MLC of Gaurav Rathore prepared on 17th October, 2004 was brought on record and corroborates the allegation of torture as Gaurav Rathore was having bruises, including redding of anal mucosa. The MLC records that the patient had given history of assault.

The judgment in G. Krishna (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the departmental authorities have considered the evidence and material on record and have arrived at their findings after giving cogent and germane reasons. The orders passed cannot be categorized as perverse or based on no evidence. The authorities have considered the entire evidence and material on record and have given their findings. Perhaps the Petitioner has been let of with a lenient punishment. As a writ Court exercising power of judicial review, no ground for interference is made out. There is no error in the decision making process.

The writ petition is dismissed.