REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4213 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13331 of 2010]

Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors. …. Appellants

Versus

Jai Bhagwan                ….Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated  

20.01.2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ  

Petition No. 3591 of 2001, whereby the High Court allowed  

the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein and set aside

the  order  dated  15.01.2001  passed  by  the  Central  

Administrative Tribunal.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the present case are that the  

respondent herein, at the relevant point of time, was working  

as  a Constable  in  Delhi  Police  and was posted at  the  IGI  

airport, New Delhi at the X-Ray Machine Belt. An allegation  

was made by one Mrs. Ranjana Kapoor that while being so  

posted there  the  respondent  extorted Rs.  100/-  by way of  

illegal  gratification  from her  during  the  course  of  security  

check of passengers.  It is alleged that Mrs. Kapoor made a  

complaint  to  one  S.P.  Narang,  Operations  Officer  of  Air  

France who took the complainant to O.P. Yadav, Inspector,  

Delhi Police on duty at the Delhi Airport.  It is also alleged  

that  the  complainant  identified  the  respondent,  who  

thereupon returned the aforesaid sum of  Rs.  100/- to the  

complainant in the presence of  O.P.  Yadav, Inspector,  and  

Arjun Singh, Sub-Inspector, who were also present at that  

time.

2

4. In  view  of  the  aforesaid  allegations  made  against  the  

respondent,  a  departmental  enquiry  was  initiated  against  

him and a chargesheet was drawn up with a charge to the  

following effect: -

“Charge:

You, Ct. Jai Bhagwan No. 770/A are hereby charged that   on the night intervening 6/7.3.95 while performing duty on  Belt at  X-Ray machine at gate  No. 7, 8 and 9 in Shift  A.  NITC had extorted Rs. 100/- as an illegal gratification from  Mrs. Ranjana Kapoor during the course of Security Check of   passengers of flight No. AF-177. She made a complaint of  this incident to  Shri P.S. Narang Operations Officer of Air  France, who introduced her to Shri O.P. Yadav Inspr. She  handed  over  a  complaint  to  the  Inspector  and  identified   you, Ct. Jai Bhagwan No. 770/A as you had accepted Rs.   100/- from her which was later on returned to her by you in   the presence of Inspr. O.P. Yadav and SI Arjun Singh.

The above  act  on  the  part  of  you,  Ct.  Jai  Bhagwan  No.  770/A amounts to gross misconduct and unbecoming of a  police officer which renders you liable to be punished Under  Section 21 of D.P. Act, 1978.”

5. Pursuant  to  the  initiation  of  the  aforesaid  enquiry,  an  

enquiry officer was appointed, who examined four witnesses  

produced  on behalf  of  the  appellants.  Two witnesses  were  

also produced on behalf  of  the respondent.  After recording  

evidence and after appreciating the said evidence as also the  

3

written  defence  statement  of  the  respondent  a  report  was  

submitted by the enquiry officer finding the respondent guilty  

of the charge drawn up against him.

6. With  the  aforesaid  records  and  the  findings,  matter  was  

placed before the disciplinary authority who directed that any  

representation  as  against  the  findings  recorded  by  the  

enquiry  officer  could  be  submitted  by  the  respondent.  

Pursuant to the same, the respondent submitted a detailed  

representation  on  30.10.1995.  The  disciplinary  authority  

after going through the entire records passed an order dated  

15.11.1995 dismissing the respondent from service.  It  was  

stated in the said order passed by the disciplinary authority  

that  after  considering  the  evidence  on  record,  gravity  of  

misconduct and overall facts / circumstances of the case it is  

proved that the respondent misused his official position and  

involved himself in corrupt practices / malpractices of illegal  

gratification  and,  therefore,  he  is  not  a  fit  person  to  be  

retained  in  the  police  force,  consequent  upon  which  the  

punishment of dismissal was awarded to the respondent.

4

7. Being  aggrieved  by  the  aforesaid  order  passed  by  the  

disciplinary authority the respondent filed an appeal before  

the  appellate  authority  which  was  also  dismissed  vide  its  

order dated 19.01.1996. Consequently, the respondent filed a  

revision  which  also  came  to  be  dismissed.  Feeling  still  

aggrieved the respondent filed an original application before  

the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short “the Tribunal”]  

which was registered as OA No. 1755/1997. By order dated  

15.01.2001  the  Tribunal  dismissed  the  aforesaid  original  

application  as  against  which  the  respondent  filed  a  Writ  

Petition  in  the  High  Court  of  Delhi.  By  the  impugned  

judgment and order passed on 20.01.2010 the High Court  

allowed  the  Writ  Petition  filed  by  the  respondent.  In  the  

aforesaid judgment and order the High Court made following  

observations: -

“4.  Undoubtedly,  the  charges  of  misuse  of   position and extortion are very serious charges.   However,  before a person is fastened with  the   punitive  liability  of  charges  of  corruption  /  extortion,  a  proper  inquiry,  following  the  principles of natural justice has to be conducted.

5.  It  is  well  settled  that  the  High Court  or  the   Central Administrative Tribunal will not interfere  

5

with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic   enquiry,  however,  if  the  case  is  a  case  of  no  evidence  or  the  finding  is  highly  perverse  or  improbable then it is the duty of the High Court  and  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal  to  go  into the merits of the case......”

And while referring to the decision in the case of Kuldeep Singh  

v. Commissioner of Police reported in AIR 1999 SC 677 the  

High Court held that the case of the appellants herein is a case  

of no evidence and that there is violation of Rule 16 (iii) of the  

Delhi  Police  (F  &A)  Rules,  1980  (for  short  “the  Rules”)  and  

ordered the reinstatement of respondent in service but without  

any back wages.

8. As against that order of the High Court appellants have filed  

the present appeal,  in which, notice  was issued and upon  

service of the said notice, the respondent entered appearance  

and, therefore, we heard the learned counsel appearing for  

the parties and also perused the materials on record.  

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted  

that  there  was  enough  evidence  on  record  to  find  the  

respondent guilty of the charge against him. In support of the  

6

said contention reference was made to the  decision of  the  

disciplinary authority as also to the findings of the enquiry  

officer. It was also submitted that Inspector, O.P. Yadav and  

S.I. Arjun Singh stated in clear terms that they had seen the  

respondent returning the aforesaid amount of Rs. 100/- to  

the  complainant.  It  was also submitted  that  there  was no  

violation of  Rule  16(iii)  in the present case and, therefore,  

High  Court  was  not  justified  in  setting  aside  the  order  of  

dismissal passed against the respondent.

10.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however,  

while refuting the aforesaid contentions submitted that the  

Mrs.  Ranjana  Kapoor,  complainant  of  the  case,  was  not  

examined  as  witness  in  the  departmental  enquiry  and,  

therefore,  there  was  no  opportunity  to  cross-examine  her  

and, therefore, there is a violation of Rule 16(iii) of the Rules.  

It was also submitted that so far as the receiving of illegal  

gratification by the respondent is concerned, the case of the  

appellants  is  a  case  of  no  evidence  at  all.  In  this  regard  

support was also taken by the counsel appearing on behalf of  

7

the respondent from the statements of the Nirmala Devi [DW-

1].

11.In the light of the aforesaid submissions we have perused  

the  records.  The  complainant  Mrs.  Ranjana  Kapoor  

complained  about  the  said  incident  to  P.S.  Narang,  

Operations Officer of Air France, who took the complainant to  

O.P.  Yadav,  Inspector,  Delhi  Police  on  duty  at  the  Delhi  

Airport and there she lodged the complaint to Inspector-O.P.  

Yadav that the respondent has extorted illegal  gratification  

from her amounting Rs. 100/- during the course of security  

check  of  passengers.  The  records  disclose  that  thereupon  

Inspector-O.P.  Yadav  along  with  complainant  and  P.S.  

Narang went to the place of the security check where, it is  

stated  that,  the  respondent  gave  Rs.  100/-  to  the  

complainant in the presence of Arjun Singh, S.I..

12.O.P.  Yadav,  Inspector,  and  Arjun  Singh,  S.I.,  during  the  

departmental  enquiry  proceedings  have  only  deposed  that  

Rs.  100/-  was  returned  by  the  respondent  to  the  

complainant.  During the course of  enquiry proceedings no  

8

witness was examined on behalf of the appellants to prove  

and establish by  tendering  any direct,  cogent  and reliable  

evidence that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 100/- was received  

by the respondent by way of illegal gratification from anyone.

13.In the present case the strange thing is that the two persons,  

namely, O.P. Yadav and Arjun singh, on the basis of whose  

statement present case was initiated, have stated that they  

have not witnessed/seen respondent taking any money from  

the complainant and that they have only witnessed the fact  

of  respondent  returning  money  to  the  complainant.  Even  

otherwise, besides these two persons, there must have been  

many other  persons including police  officers  on duty near  

about the X-Ray machine belt but none of them was cited  

and  examined  as  witness  during  the  departmental  

proceedings  to  prove  and  establish  that  such  money  as  

alleged was received by the respondent as illegal gratification.  

The place where security check was carried out was an open  

place and there must have been many other persons, besides  

police  officers,  present at  that time but none of  them has  

9

been examined during the departmental proceedings against  

the respondent to prove the alleged fact of demanding and  

receiving illegal gratification by him.

14.In the present case, although there is some evidence that an  

amount of Rs. 100/- was returned by the respondent to the  

complainant but there is no such direct and reliable evidence  

produced by the appellants in the departmental proceedings  

which  clearly  prove  and  establish  that  the  respondent  

demanded  and  received  an  illegal  gratification  of  the  said  

denomination.   It seems that the proof of taking such illegal  

gratification has been drawn from the evidence of returning  

of Rs. 100/- to the complainant by way of a link up.

15.It  also  seems quite  impracticable  to  presume  that  in  the  

presence of so many passengers, the respondent could have  

extorted  money.   The  allegation  of  receiving  Rs.  100/-  as  

illegal gratification is framed on suspicions and possibilities  

while trying to link it up with the instance of returning back  

of               Rs. 100/- by the respondent to the complainant.  

There  are  many  other  shortcomings  in  the  entire  

10

investigation  and  the  enquiry  like  the  statement  of  Mrs.  

Ranjana Kapoor was not recorded by the Inspector and the  

Inspector also did not take down in writing and also attest  

the complaint  made by her.  The statement of  S.P.  Narang  

was also not recorded by the Inspector nor did the Inspector  

seize Rs. 100/- note nor noted down its number. Mr. Narang  

was  also  not  examined during  the  course  of  departmental  

proceedings.  Non-examination of  the complainant  and P.S.  

Narang during the departmental proceeding has denied the  

respondent of his right of cross-examination and thus caused  

violation of  Rule 16 (iii)  of  the Delhi  Police (F & A)  Rules,  

1980.

16.In the absence of such a definite/clear proof supporting the  

case of the appellants it is difficult to draw a finding of taking  

illegal gratification by the respondent from the complainant.  

Therefore, as rightly held by the High Court the present case  

is a case of no evidence.  

17.Therefore,  in  view  of  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  

present case at hand we have no hesitation to hold that the  

11

view  taken  by  the  High  Court  does  not  suffer  from  any  

infirmity and that the present is a case of no evidence and  

that there is a violation of Rule 16 (iii) of the Delhi Police (F  

&A) Rules, 1980.

18.Albeit there could be a needle of suspicion pointed towards  

the respondent.  However, suspicion cannot take the place of  

proof and, therefore, we find no merit in this appeal which is  

hereby dismissed.

19.However, in the facts and circumstances of this case we not  

only reiterate the order passed by the High Court that the  

respondent on reinstatement would not be paid any back-

wages or arrears of wages for the period during which he was  

out of service but we also observe that he would not be given  

any sensitive posting and he shall be kept under watch.

            ..................................... ......J

           [Dr.  Mukundakam  Sharma ]

12

   ............................................J              [ Anil R. Dave ]

New Delhi, May 10, 2011.

13