HC upholds Dismissal of Policeman caught at Airport with Foreign Currency, Read Zero Tolerance to Corruption

 

Judgment 

Upholding the decision of termination of Head Constable caught with foreigngh currency at the Airport, the Delhi High Court has remarked that Police Personnel flouting law and order should has to be dealt with iron hands.

The Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad termed the matter as 'open and shut case' as possession of foreign currency in his pocket at the time of a surprise check read with statements of other witnesses clearly established misconduct on his part.

 

"The present case is certainly not a case of no evidence. It is an open and shut case, wherein, a Head Constable was found with 75 Dirhams. He was posted on a very sensitive duty, to check the passports of passengers. Possession of foreign currency in his pocket at the time of a surprise check read with statements of other witnesses clearly establishes the misconduct committed by him."

The present writ petition has been filed Order of Commissioner of Police, the Disciplinary Authority and the order passed by the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal. Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued before the Court that the present case is a case where no evidence has been adduced.

There was no evidence of demanding and accepting bribe, and in absence of an eyewitness to the demand and acceptance of a bribe, and absence of evidence from the person from whom the money was allegedly extorted, it cannot be said that any misconduct occurred at the behest of the Petitioner, he submitted. 

It was a case of no evidence, and the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer are perverse findings, he contended.

The Court however was of the view that by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the present case is a case of no evidence.

"It is an undisputed fact that 75 Dirhams were recovered from the Petitioner at the time when the search took place and the Petitioner was certainly not a traveler who came from some foreign country, thereby being in possession of Dirhams." 

The Court noted that it is dwaling with a case in which the Police personnel who was supposed to be the custodian of law and whose duty is to ensure that people are following the law of the land.

"If such a person himself breaks the law, he has to be dealt with iron hands, and, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court no other punishment except dismissal could have been inflicted upon him in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Ld. CAT", the Court ruled.The Court referred to R. Mahalingam v. T.N. Public Service Commission, (2013) which has provided guidance on the scope of judicial interference in matters challenging disciplinary action.

 
HC upholds Dismissal of Policeman caught at Airport with Foreign Currency, Read Zero Tolerance to Corruption Judgment
Airport Terminal Delhi Airport
14 Nov 2022
Categories : Case Analysis Latest News

Upholding the decision of termination of Head Constable caught with foreigngh currency at the Airport, the Delhi High Court has remarked that Police Personnel flouting law and order should has to be dealt with iron hands.

The Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad termed the matter as 'open and shut case' as possession of foreign currency in his pocket at the time of a surprise check read with statements of other witnesses clearly established misconduct on his part.

"The present case is certainly not a case of no evidence. It is an open and shut case, wherein, a Head Constable was found with 75 Dirhams. He was posted on a very sensitive duty, to check the passports of passengers. Possession of foreign currency in his pocket at the time of a surprise check read with statements of other witnesses clearly establishes the misconduct committed by him."

The present writ petition has been filed Order of Commissioner of Police, the Disciplinary Authority and the order passed by the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal. Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued before the Court that the present case is a case where no evidence has been adduced.

There was no evidence of demanding and accepting bribe, and in absence of an eyewitness to the demand and acceptance of a bribe, and absence of evidence from the person from whom the money was allegedly extorted, it cannot be said that any misconduct occurred at the behest of the Petitioner, he submitted.

Read also : Advocate booked for cheating 72 People of Rs 1.68-cr, Anticipatory bail denied

It was a case of no evidence, and the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer are perverse findings, he contended.

The Court however was of the view that by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the present case is a case of no evidence.

"It is an undisputed fact that 75 Dirhams were recovered from the Petitioner at the time when the search took place and the Petitioner was certainly not a traveler who came from some foreign country, thereby being in possession of Dirhams."

Read also : Delhi Excise Policy: Did Media exaggerate reports?, HC directs CBI, ED to provide Press Communications

 

The Court noted that it is dwaling with a case in which the Police personnel who was supposed to be the custodian of law and whose duty is to ensure that people are following the law of the land.

"If such a person himself breaks the law, he has to be dealt with iron hands, and, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court no other punishment except dismissal could have been inflicted upon him in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Ld. CAT", the Court ruled.

Read also : Father gets Bail for arranging Fees for his Daughter's Law School Admission, Read HC Order

The Court referred to R. Mahalingam v. T.N. Public Service Commission, (2013) which has provided guidance on the scope of judicial interference in matters challenging disciplinary action.

It also mentioned Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra, 1999 Latest Caselaw 7 SC, State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao, 1963 Latest Caselaw 118 SC,  Union of India and others Vs. P. Gunasekaran [November 19, 2014], 2014 Latest Caselaw 717 SC

CASE TITLE: SURESH KUMAR vs CP & ORS.

 

CASE DETAILS: W.P.(C) 7245/2003

CORAM: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad

Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Anil Singal

 Advocates for Respondent: Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh and Ms.Laavanya Kaushik, Advocates for Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1. Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Advocate for Respondents.

Social media is bold. 

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!   

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure