Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 23.05.2012 (Annexure P-2) on the ground that the findings so recorded are based on no evidence and, therefore, subsequent orders of punishment dated 22.08.2012 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon, vide which two increments of the petitioner have been stopped with permanent effect. Challenge has also been posed to the impugned order dated 03.01.2013 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon, rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner as also the order dated 21.03.2013 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana, dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner.
(2.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that during the enquiry proceedings held against the petitioner, the star witness for the prosecution was the complainant namely Vijay Pal (PW-7), who, in his statement before the Enquiry Officer although said that he had submitted a complaint to the Joint Commissioner against Assistant Moharar Mohan Singh as the person who had taken bribe from him of INR 500/- and after taking money, had processed the application of the complainant which was submitted for sale and purchase of his gun but the said person who had taken the bribe was not the petitioner and, in fact, the said person was a person of short structure and dark complexion. The money was not paid to Assistant Moharar Mohan Singh, the delinquent official, against whom the enquiry was being held and he has, under a misguidance, submitted the complaint against Mohan Singh. As a matter of fact, he reached the police station to verify about his file where he met a person who was in plain clothes and enquired from him as to where he could met the Moharar. The said person claimed himself to be the Moharar on which the complainant had asked him about his file regarding sale of gun whether it has been sent to the office of Joint Commissioner of Police or not. The said person asked for INR 500/- but he did not pay him and gave an application to the Joint Commissioner of Police. On seeing the petitioner, he had stated that this was not the person who he had met when he had visited the police station.
(3.) As per this statement, counsel contends that the case of the prosecution falls flat on the ground and apart from this, there is nothing on the record which would suggest that petitioner had ever demanded any bribe or was paid to him. He has referred to the statement of Pardeep Kumar PW-4 who stated that the petitioner did not ask for any money from Vijay Pal in front of him. He, on this basis, contends that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer being based on no evidence, the Enquiry Report itself deserves to be set aside and the consequential orders imposing punishment upon the petitioner should also be quashed.;