Constable 43 CP Virendra Singh (cid:133) & Ors. v. Director General of Police, Dehradun, Uttarakhand & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SUDHANSHU DHULIA
Judgment
Mr. Tumul K. Nailwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon(cid:146)ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) [ Heard Mr. Tumul K. Nailwal, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioners were constables in Civil Police. While they were on duty at Police Chowki Paiga, District Udham Singh Nagar on 6.4.2009 one of the constables namely, Prakash Joshi who was in the same chowki, was caught red handed taking a bribe of ‘ 100/- from a tractor owner. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Apart from disciplinary proceedings a criminal case was also filed against him. Departmental proceedings were also initiated against the petitioners and another constable, namely, Trilok Singh Khati on the presumption that since the petitioners and another constable, namely, Trilok Singh Khati were also in the same (cid:147)chowki(cid:148), they were also liable to be involved in the said act. In the said disciplinary proceeding, censure entry was given to the petitioners and another constable Trilok Singh Khati. It is this censure entry which was challenged by the petitioners first in the departmental appeal and thereafter in the revision. Subsequently, the petitioners have filed this petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the main accused, namely, Prakash Joshi, against whom a criminal proceeding was also initiated was acquitted by the Court on
23.8.2010. Subsequently he filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 526 of 2009. The said writ 2 petition was allowed and his dismissal order dated 7.4.2009 was set aside on the ground that since the petitioner has been honourably acquitted on the same set of charges, the disciplinary proceeding was liable to come to an end as such. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that a criminal proceeding and a departmental proceeding are different proceedings. Whereas in a criminal trial one is only convicted if the prosecution proves its case (cid:147)beyond reasonable doubt(cid:148), this is not so in a departmental proceeding and all which has to be proved in a departmental proceeding is (cid:147)preponderance of probabilities(cid:148). Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 19.11.2010 has set aside the punishment given by the disciplinary authority to Prakash Joshi who was the main culprit. Therefore the benefit is also liable to be given to the petitioners as well. The petitioners have also apprised this Court that during the pendency of the present writ petition though same punishment of censure entry was given to another constable, namely, Trilok Singh Khati, in revision it has been set aside for the reasons that the main accused Prakash Joshi has got a favourable order by the Court i.e. order 19.11.2010 by which the punishment given to him by the disciplinary authority has been set aside. On these set of facts, this Court without going into the merits of the matter holds that the same benefit is liable to be given to the petitioners as well. Consequently, orders dated
31.8.2009, 10.12.2009 and 18.3.2010 are hereby set aside. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
30.8.2011 Avneet (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.