In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of Constable Pardeep for his involvement in a serious offense. The Court highlighted the grave nature of the misconduct, which tarnished the image of the police force. This decision sets a precedent for maintaining transparency and upholding the rule of law within law enforcement agencies. #DelhiHighCourt #LegalJustice #Judgement
Facts
- Respondent will be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with relevant rules.
Arguments
- Petitioner’s argument: Respondent was a police personnel involved in a serious offence
- No witness would come forward to depose against the respondent
- Respondent is related to the complainant
- Claim of an amicable settlement between the respondent and the complainant
- It is not reasonably practicable to conduct a regular departmental enquiry against Ct. Pardeep, No 2944/N.
- There is a reasonable belief that witnesses would not come forward to oppose him due to intimidation, inducement, and affiliation of material PWs.
- The complainant is a relative of the Constable who has been arrested.
- The misconduct of Ct. Pardeep, No 2944/N, in a case of extortion of money is of a grave nature.
- Exemplary punishment of dismissal is warranted to prevent the recurrence of such crimes.
Analysis
- The Tribunal allowed the original application filed by Ct. Mukesh Kumar Yadav.
- The decision was based on a previous case titled Ct. Sumit Sharma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
- The Tribunal considered the grounds for dispensing with the inquiry provided by the petitioners.
- The misconduct of Ct. Pardeep was deemed as the gravest criminal activity that tarnished the image of the police force.
- Allowing someone like Ct. Pardeep to continue in the police force was seen as detrimental to public interest.
- The Court rejected the challenge by dispensing with the enquiry, similar to the decision in Dushyant Kumar case.
- The Court noted that the petitioners were passing orders to dispense with the enquiry in a mechanical manner.
- The dismissal order cited the reason that it may not be practicable to hold an enquiry against the police personnel due to the potential influence on witnesses.
- The Court highlighted that it takes great courage to depose against a desperate person, especially when the defaulter is a police official.
- The decision to dismiss the constable from service under article-31i(2)(b) of the Constitution of India was based on the grave misconduct and unfitness for police service.
- The Tribunal rightfully rejected the presumption that the police personnel would threaten witnesses, leading to the conclusion that an enquiry was not reasonably practicable.
- The chances of the complainant turning hostile during the disciplinary proceedings were considered high due to being a relative of the delinquent.
- The Tribunal correctly upheld that the petitioners dispensed with enquiry against the respondent without justifiable reason.
- Gravity of charges does not justify dispensing with an enquiry on vague grounds.
Decision
- The Court finds no reason to 14
- The writ petition is dismissed
- All pending applications are also dismissed
Case Title: COMMISIONER OF POLICE DELHI & ORS. Vs. PRADEEP (2024:DHC:4394-DB)
Case Number: W.P.(C)-7826/2024
