COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI & ORS. versus JAI BHAGWAN

Citation: [2011] 7 S.C.R. 558 · Decided: 10-05-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2011] 7 S.C.R. 558 
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI & ORS. 
V. 
JAi BHAGWAN 
{Civil Appeal No. 4213 of 2011) 
MAY 10, 2011 
[OR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND 
ANIL R. DAVE, JJ. ] 
Service Law: 
Dismissal - Gross misconduct - Charges of demand and 
receipt of illegal gratification, against respondent-police 
constable - Departmental enquiry - Consequent dismissal 
of respondent -
Challenge to - High Court ordered re-
instatement of respondent, but without any back wages - On 
D appeal, held: No direct and reliable evidence was produced 
by the appellants to prove and establish that the respondent 
demanded and received illegal gratification - Also, ·the 
complainant was not examined as witness in the departmental 
enquiry and, therefore, there was no opportunity to cross-
E examine her and, therefore, there was a violation of Rule 
16(iii) of the Rules - The case of the appellants was a case 
of no evidence at all - In the facts and circumstances of this 
case, Supreme Court not only re-iterated the order passed by 
the High Court but further directed that he not be given any 
F sensitive posting and be kept under watch - Delhi Police Act, 
1978 - s.21 - Delhi Police (F & A) Rules, 1980 - Rule 16 
(iii) - Violation of - Doctrines/Principles - Principle of natural 
justice. 
G 
The respondent was working as a Constable in Delhi 
Police and posted at the IGI airport, New Delhi at the X-
Ray Machine Belt. It was alleged that while being so 
posted, the respondent extorted Rs.1001- by way of illegal 
gratification from one 'R' during the course of security 
H 
558 
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI & ORS. v. JAi 559 
BHAGWAN 
check of passengers. 'R' purportedly made a complaint 
A 
to one 'N', Operations Officer of Air France who took the 
complainant to 'Y', a Police Inspector on duty at the Delhi 
Airport. It was also alleged that the c'omplainant 'R' 
identified the respondent, who thereupon returned the 
aforesaid sum. of Rs. 100/- to the complainant in the 
B 
presence of 'Y, and one 'A', a Police Sub-Inspector. 
In view of the allegations made against the 
respondent, a departmental enquiry was initiated against 
him and an enquiry officer was appointed, who found the 
respondent guilty, and consequently the disciplinary C 
authority passed an order dismissing the respondent 
from service on ground of grave misconduct. The order 
of dismissal was upheld by the appellate authority as well 
as by the Tribunal. Respondent thereafter filed writ 
petition in the High Court. The High Court held that the 
D 
case of the appellants was a case of no evidence and that 
there was violation of Rule 16 (iii) of the Delhi Police (F 
&A) Rules, 1980 and accordingly ordered the 
reinstatement of respondent in service but without any 
back wages. 
E 
In the instant appeal, it was contended by the 
appellants that the High Court was not justified in setting 
aside the order of dismissal passed against the 
respondent. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. During the departmental enquiry 
proceedings, 'Y' and 'A' only deposed that Rs. 100/- was 
returned by the respondent to the complainant 'R'. During 
G 
the course of enquiry proceedings no witness was 
examined on behalf of the appellants to prove and 
establish by tendering any direct, cogent and reliable 
evidence that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 100/- was 
received by the respondent by way of illegal gratification 
from anyone. [Para 12] [566-D-E] 
H 
560 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 7 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. Strangely the two persons, namely, 'Y' and 'A', 
on the basis of whose statement the present case was 
initiated, have stated that they have not witnessed/seen 
respondent taking any money from the complainant and 
that they have only witnessed the fact of respondent 
B returning money to the complainant. Besides these two 
persons, there must have been many other persons 
including police officers on duty near about the X-Ray 
machine belt but none of them was cited and examined 
as witness during the departmental proceedings to prove 
c and establish that such money as alleged was received 
by the respondent as illegal gratification. The place where 
security check was carried out was an open place and 
there must have been many other persons, besides 
police officers, present at that time but none of them has 
0 been examined during the departmental proceedings 
against the respondent to prove the alleged fact of 
demand and receipt of illegal gratification by him. 
A

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.