Court confirms forfeiture of one-year approved service for officer accused of extortion during duty rest
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a police officer challenging the disciplinary actions taken against him for alleged misconduct. The court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision, which supported the orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities to forfeit one year of approved service for the officer, Mr. Jaideep Kumar, a Head Constable in the Delhi Police.
The case dates back to April 2020, when Mr. Kumar, while on duty rest, allegedly detained two individuals, Chandan and Dinesh Sahoo, under the pretense of investigating a vehicle theft. Instead of following protocol by involving the police station, Mr. Kumar took the matter into his own hands, leading the individuals to a third party's location to verify ownership claims. It was during this encounter that he was accused of extorting Rs. 42,000 from them.
The disciplinary proceedings were initiated following a preliminary inquiry by ACP/Narela, which substantiated the claims against Mr. Kumar. Despite key witnesses turning hostile during the departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority found sufficient circumstantial evidence to uphold the charges of misconduct. The officer was penalized with the permanent forfeiture of one year of approved service, a decision later affirmed by the appellate authority.
Mr. Kumar's legal team argued that the disciplinary findings were unsustainable due to the lack of direct evidence, particularly as the primary witnesses retracted their allegations during formal proceedings. However, the court maintained that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not extend to re-evaluating evidence in such disciplinary matters unless findings are evidently perverse or illegal. The court emphasized the standard of proof in departmental inquiries is based on the preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment reiterated the responsibility of police officers to adhere to proper procedures and the potential consequences of overstepping their duties. It underscored the importance of maintaining integrity and accountability within the police force, particularly when dealing with the public.
Bottom Line:
Scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary matters is limited - Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or act as an appellate authority unless findings are shown to be perverse or patently illegal.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Jaideep Kumar v. Commissioner of Police, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2874253
