INSPECTOR PREM CHAND versus GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND OTHERS

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 968 · Decided: 05-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
INSPECTOR PREM CHAND 
... 
v. 
GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND OlliERS 
APRIL 5, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
.,, 
Service Law: 
~ 
c 
Disciplinary proceedings-Misconduct-f!llegations of demand for bribe 
by Malaria Inspector-Raid constituted-Phenolphthalein powder applied 
on bribe money-Inspector declined to take tainted money directly-He was 
acquitted by Criminal Court-Disciplinary proceedings against Appellant 
Raiding Officer under the Police Rules for not seizing tainted money as case 
property-He was held guilty of misconduct and negligence-Punishment of 
D forfeiture of one year's approved service imposed-Justification of-Held, not 
justified-Appellant was not guilty of any willful unlawful behaviour in 
relation to discharge of his duties in service - Act of omission on his part was 
• 
a mere error of judgment-Error of judgment per se is not a misconduct-
Negligence simpliciter also would not be misconduct-Delhi Police 
E 
(Punishment and Appeal), Rules, 1980. 
Complaint was filed against a Malaria Inspector of the Municipal 
Corporation that he was demanding Rs.3,000/- by way of illegal gratification. 
Appellant, posted in the Anti-Corruption Branch as a Raid Officer, constituted 
a raiding party. The complainant produced a sum ofRs.3000/- in denomination 
F 
of Rs.500/- each in which Phenolphthalein powder was applied but when he 
attempted to pay the amount to the said Inspector, he did not accept it directly. 
In criminal proceedings initiated against the said Inspector, the Court record 
< 
a judgment of acquittal. During pendency of the said criminal proceedings, 
departmental proceeding was initiated against the Appellant for gross 
misconduct, negligence and dereliction in discharge of official duties for not 
G seizing the tainted money as case property. He was held guilty of the said 
charges and punishment of forfeiture of one year's approved service was 
imposed upon him. 
It is contended by the Appellant that he cannot be said to have committed 
,., 
any misconduct and hence the punishment imposed upon him was 
H 
968 
INSPECTOR PREM CHAND v. GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 
969 
unwarranted. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the appellant 
in terms of the provisions of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 
1980. It was, therefore, necessary for the disciplinary authority to arrive at B 
a finding of fact that the appellant was guilty of an unlawful behaviour in 
relation to discharge of his duties in service, which was willful in character. 
No such finding was arrived at. An error of judgment per se is not a 
misconduct. A negligence simpliciter also would not be misconduct. 
[Para 12) [974-D-E] C 
State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Singh Ex. Constable, (1992) 4 SCC 
54; Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. T. K. Raju, (2006] 3 SCC 143 and Union 
of India & Ors. v. J. Ahmed, (1979) 2 SCC 286, referred to. 
to. 
P. Ramanatha Aiyar 's Law Lexicon, 3rd edition, at page 3027, referred D 
2. The tribunal opined that the acts of omission on the part of the 
appellant was not a mere error of judgment On what premise the said opinion 
was arrived at is not clear. The appellate authority, namely, the Commissioner 
of Police, Delhi, categorically held that the appellant being a raiding officer E 
should have seized.the tainted money as case property. In a given case, what 
should have beer. done, is a matter which would depend on the facts and 
circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down therefor. 
(Para 13) (975-B-C] 
3. The Criminal Court admittedly did not pass any adverse remarks F 
against the appellant. Some adverse remarks were passed against the 
Investigating Officer, who examined himself as PW-4 as he had handed over 
the tainted money to the complainant PW-2. A finding of fact was arrived at 
that the accused did not make demand of any amount from the complainant 
and thus no case has been made out against him. 
(Paras 14 and 15) (975-D-El G 
Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India & Ors., (1999) 7 SCC 
409, referred to. 
4. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant 
cannot be said to have committed any misconduct (Para 16) [975-G] 
H 
A 
970 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 4 S.C.R. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1815 of2007. 
From the Final Judgment and order dated 21.04.2006 of the High Court 
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (civil) No. 604

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