Crux:
This matter deals with taking bribes by a police officer and due to lack of evidence, the accused was released.
Bench:
Mukundakam Sharma, Anil R. Dave
Appellant:
Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors.
Respondent:
Jai Bhagwan
Issue
Did the police officer accept a bribe from the appellant?
Facts
- This order was passed by the High Court of Delhi.
- The accused worked as a constable in the Delhi Police and was then transferred to the Indira Gandhi International Airport in Delhi.
- He was positioned at the X-ray machine belt at the airport.
- The appellant, Mrs Ranjana Kapoor, made an assertion that the police officer extorted Rupees One Hundred from her while doing the security check of the passengers boarding the flights.
- On account of the allegations drawn up, a department enquiry was done and a charge sheet was drawn up.
- He was charged under Section 21 of D.P. Act, 1978.
- An enquiry officer was appointed for this case. The respondent was found guilty for the charge drawn up against him.
- The Disciplinary Committee told the respondent that if any of their findings were false, the respondent could counter them.
- Hence, the respondent then gave a detailed representation claiming his innocence, but later, he was removed from service because the Committee stated he was involved in corrupt practices. The respondent filed an appeal later, but it was also dismissed.
- After many tries in the other courts, the respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi.
- In this enquiry, it was stated that while there were witnesses that the respondent gave back the money, there is no evidence and witness that the respondent took the money.
- There are some gaps in the case because the appellant’s statement was not taken by the Inspector, who also did not take it down in writing. Statement of Mr. Narang was also not recorded nor was the note seized or its number recorded.
- In a busy open airport, it is unlikely for a bribe to take place.
Appellant’s contentions
- The appellant has alleged that she had made a complaint to S.P. Narang, who was the Operations Officer of Air France and he took this particular complaint to O.P. Yadav who was the Inspector of the Delhi Police.
- Mr. Yadav was on duty at the Delhi Airport.
- She also stated that Mr. Narang who made the complaint identified Mr. Bhagwan.
- She said that Mr. Bhagwan returned the entire allegedly extorted amount of Rupees One Hundred.
- She said that this amount was given back to her when the inspector, Mr. Yadav and the Sub-Inspector, Mr. Arjun Singh were present.
- Four witnesses were produced on behalf of the appellant.
- The appellants submitted in the High Court of Delhi that there was enough evidence on record to find the respondent guilty of the charge against him.
Respondent’s contentions
- The respondent denied the allegations made against him.
- Two witnesses were produced on behalf of the respondent.
Relevant Paragraphs ( 6, 7 and 15 of the Original Judgement )
- After reviewing all of the data, the disciplinary authority issued an order removing the respondent from service on November 15, 1995. According to the disciplinary authority's order, "it is proven that the respondent misused his official position and engaged in corrupt practises / malpractices of illegal gratification after considering the evidence on record, gravity of misconduct, and overall facts / circumstances of the case," "it is proven that the respondent misused his official position and engaged in corrupt practises / malpractices of illegal gratification and, as a result, he is not a fit person to be retained in the police force."
- In Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police, reported in AIR 1999 SC 677, the High Court concluded that the appellants' case is devoid of evidence and that Rule 16 (iii) of the Delhi Police (F & A) Rules, 1980 has been violated, ordering the respondent to be reinstated in service but without back pay.
- It also seems implausible to believe that the responder could have extorted money in the presence of so many passengers. The charge of getting Rs. 100/- as illegal gratification is based on suspicions and possibilities, with an attempt to connect it to the case of the respondent repaying Rs. 100/- to the complainant.
Final Decision
The High Court stated that the case is of no evidence. There is suspicion but not proof, thus appeal is dismissed. But the period during which the respondent was jobless, will not be paid back and he will be kept under watch. Any sensitive posting will also not be given to the respondent.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
