KULDEEP SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted.

(2.) THE appellant, a Constable in the Delhi Police was dismissed, after a regular departmental enquiry, from service, by order dated 3-5-1991, passed by Dy. Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi, which was upheld in appeal by Addl. Commissioner of Police by his order dated 22-7-1991. THE appellant then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi and the Tribunal, by the impugned judgment dated 28/02/1997, dismissed the claim petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India has, on the other hand, contended that the enquiry was held in consonance with the principles of natural justice and during the course of the enquiry, full opportunity was given to the appellant to defend himself. As far the evidence is concerned, it is contended that though it is true that none of the complainant was examined but on account of Rule 16(3) of the Delhi Police (F and A) Rules, 1980, it was not required to produce the complainant in person as the Rule itself contemplated that in the absence of a witness whose presence could not be procured without undue delay, inconvenience or expense, his statement, already made on an earlier occasion, could be placed on record in the departmental enquiry and the matter could be decided on that basis. It was under this Rule that the previous joint statement of the complainants was brought on record without examining any of them. LEARNED counsel for the respondents contended that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is extremely narrow and limited. The Court cannot, it is contended, re-examine or re-appraise the evidence and substitute its own conclusion in place of the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority on that evidence.