Ram Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 6 November 2026

ORDER

Per Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J): The applicant, while working as a Constable in Delhi Police and posted at Police Station Mayapuri, District West, New Delhi, was served with a summary of allegations and a charge for alleged negligence in the discharge of his duties, which allegedly resulted in the missing of a service pistol from the Malkhana of Police Station Hari Nagar. Vide order dated 08.02.2012, departmental proceedings by way of a regular inquiry were ordered against the applicant and other concerned officials. The applicant was also placed under suspension and remained under suspension till 22.05.2012. It is submitted that Inspector R.N. Chaudhary, Police Station Mayapuri, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer and a common departmental inquiry was conducted against the concerned officials. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the conduct of a common inquiry prejudiced the applicant's defence and that the applicant could not be properly tried independently. During the course of the inquiry, the prosecution witnesses were examined and cross- examined by the applicant; however, nothing emerged from their statements or cross-examination to establish his involvement in the alleged incident dated 13.10.2011.

2. It is further submitted that the applicant filed his written defence during the inquiry, denying the charges levelled against him. However, the Inquiry Officer primarily relied upon the preliminary inquiry report conducted by Inspector Karuna Sagar, which was never supplied to the applicant, thereby depriving him of an

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

opportunity to effectively defend himself. The Inquiry Officer also relied upon the statement of PW-11, who had admittedly deposed on the basis of the statement of Constable Surjeet Singh. After being served with the inquiry report, the applicant submitted his representation denying the allegations and seeking his exoneration. It is pointed out that the missing pistol was subsequently recovered from a private person, namely, Shri Lakhi Chand, who allegedly found it lying abandoned in the area behind DDU Hospital, near DDA Park. The applicant's representation submitted before the imposition of the penalty has been placed on record as Annexure A-6.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that respondent No. 3, without independently examining the material available on record and merely accepting the findings of the Inquiry Officer, imposed the major penalty of permanent forfeiture of one year's approved service and also directed that the period of suspension be treated as not spent on duty. It is contended that the departmental inquiry was conducted in violation of the procedure prescribed under the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, particularly Rule 15 thereof, as the preliminary inquiry report, which formed the basis of the findings, was not supplied to the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant preferred an appeal before respondent No. 1, specifically pointing out that he had been falsely implicated on the basis of the statement of Constable Surjeet Singh. However, the Appellate Authority, without properly considering the grounds raised in the appeal, mechanically upheld the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are unsustainable, as there is no cogent or clinching evidence establishing the applicant's involvement in the alleged incident. It is submitted that had the applicant actually taken the pistol from the almirah without the permission of Constable Surjeet Singh, the alleged incident would necessarily have been recorded in the Roznamcha and reported to the SHO of Police Station Hari Nagar. No such entry or information was available on record. It is further pointed out that, as per the statement of PW-11, the pistol in question had been issued in the name of Constable Laiji Ram No. 1088/W, Police Post Hari Nagar. The Chitha dated 12.10.2011 reflected that Constable Surjeet Singh, Constable Raj Singh (the applicant), Constable Ramji Ram and Constable Sh. Bhagwan were assigned different duties during the relevant period. Constable Surjeet Singh was performing duty as DD Writer from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM, whereas the applicant was deployed on motorcycle patrolling duty during the same period. Constable Sh. Bhagwan and Constable Ramji Ram were assigned night picket duty from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. The pistol was subsequently recovered from Shri Lakhi Chand on the intervening night of 12/13.10.2011.

5. It is further contended that PW-10, Constable Balwan Singh, categorically stated that on 12.10.2011, he was performing duty as DD Writer and also looking after the work of Chitha Munshi from 4:00 PM to 10:00 PM. The pistol in question remained in his possession during that period and, upon completion of his duty, he handed it over to the next DD Writer, namely, Constable Surjeet

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

Singh. Thus, according to learned counsel, the pistol was in the possession of Constable Surjeet Singh, who was himself one of the charged officials in the departmental proceedings, and the applicant has been made a scapegoat on the basis of an unsubstantiated and hearsay version attributed to him. It is also submitted that Constable Laiji Ram had stated that, after completion of duty, the pistol used to be handed over to the next DD Writer.

6. Learned counsel further submits that Constable Surjeet Singh's statement could not have been relied upon to establish the applicant's guilt, particularly when Surjeet Singh was himself an accused in the departmental proceedings and there was no independent corroborative evidence supporting his version. No witness had seen the applicant removing the pistol from the almirah, nor was there any contemporaneous entry in the DD Register or any other official record indicating that the applicant had taken away the pistol without permission. It is also pointed out that the alleged private person, Shri Lakhi Chand, from whose possession the pistol was recovered, was not examined during the departmental inquiry, despite his being a material witness. As per the version attributed to him, the pistol was found lying abandoned near DDU Hospital. Learned counsel also draws attention to the cross-examination of PW-11, wherein he admitted that he had merely recorded the statement of Constable Surjeet Singh and had no independent knowledge of the alleged incident. It is, therefore, contended that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on conjectures and surmises rather than legally sustainable evidence.

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

7. It is further argued that the charges levelled against the applicant were vague and unspecific, as five constables were implicated in connection with the disappearance of the government service pistol without clearly establishing the individual role attributable to the applicant. The Disciplinary Authority also failed to apply its mind while ordering a common inquiry against the concerned officials, which seriously prejudiced the applicant's defence. Learned counsel submits that the Inquiry Officer's findings are perverse and unsupported by the evidence on record and that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority failed to independently consider the material aspects of the case and the specific grounds raised by the applicant.

8. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant challenges the decision to treat the period of suspension as not spent on duty, contending that the same was ordered without affording the applicant a reasonable opportunity of hearing and without recording appropriate reasons. It is submitted that the said action is contrary to the provisions of Rules 53 and 54 of the Fundamental Rules and the principles governing the treatment of suspension periods. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law and prays that the same be set aside and the applicant be granted consequential relief.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed the counter affidavit and submitted that the applicant, while posted as Constable at Police Post Hari Nagar, was detailed for night motorcycle patrolling

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

duty from midnight to 6:00 AM on the intervening night of 12/13.10.2011, when a government service pistol bearing No. 16222350, issued to Constable Laiji Ram, was found missing and subsequently recovered from a private person, namely, Shri Lakhi Chand, who had found it lying abandoned near DDU Hospital. It is submitted that, on scrutiny of the relevant records and preliminary inquiry, the applicant and other police personnel were found negligent and responsible for the loss of the government weapon. Accordingly, a joint departmental inquiry was initiated against them under the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. During the inquiry, 11 prosecution witnesses were examined, and the applicant was afforded due opportunity to cross-examine them. The applicant also submitted his defence statement, which was duly considered by the Inquiry Officer, who ultimately held the charge against him to be proved.

10. Learned counsel further submits that PW-10, HC Balwan Singh, categorically stated that after completion of his duty as DD Writer on 12.10.2011, he had handed over the charge along with the service pistol to Constable Surjeet Singh, who was the next DD Writer. Constable Surjeet Singh, in his statement, suspected that the applicant might have taken the pistol from the almirah without his knowledge while proceeding for night patrolling duty at about 12:05 AM. It is further submitted that the applicant's presence on night patrolling duty during the relevant period was corroborated by PW-4, Constable Ajit, and PW-6, Constable Manohar, as well as the duty roster and Chitha dated 12.10.2011. The said version was also

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

supported by the statement of SI Sandeep, PW-11, who had conducted the inquiry regarding the recovery of the pistol.

11. It is contended that the Inquiry Officer conducted the departmental proceedings in accordance with the prescribed procedure and duly considered the defence taken by the applicant. The preliminary inquiry report and other relevant documents were relied upon in support of the departmental proceedings, and the applicant was afforded an opportunity to submit his representation against the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority also considered his representation and heard him in orderly room before imposing the penalty of permanent forfeiture of one year's approved service, entailing proportionate reduction in pay, vide order dated 18.06.2013. The period of suspension from 13.10.2011 to 22.05.2012 was also ordered to be treated as period not spent on duty.

12. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant's appeal was duly considered by the Appellate Authority after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing him in orderly room. The appeal was accordingly rejected vide order dated 19.06.2015. It is argued that the punishment imposed upon the applicant is commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct and that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are well-reasoned, speaking and legally sustainable. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Original Application is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.

14. The principal issue which arises for consideration is whether there was any substantive evidence on record to establish the applicant's involvement in the alleged removal of the government service pistol from the almirah on the intervening night of 12/13.10.2011. Having carefully examined the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the material relied upon by the respondents, we find that the charge against the applicant is not supported by any direct or legally sustainable evidence. Admittedly, the service pistol was originally issued in the name of Constable Laiji Ram and, during the departmental inquiry, it emerged that the relevant records regarding the issuance, custody and return of the said weapon had not been properly maintained after 11.07.2011. There is no contemporaneous documentary record thereafter establishing the actual custody of the pistol or its movement from one police personnel to another. It has also come on record during the inquiry that the DD Writer had failed to maintain proper records regarding the issuance and return of the service pistol to the concerned police personnel. Thus, in the absence of any reliable official record, the precise whereabouts and custody of the weapon during the relevant period could not be established.

15. It is further evident from the material on record that PW-10, HC Balwan Singh, had handed over the charge along with the pistol to Constable Surjeet Singh, who was the next DD Writer. However, there is no documentary evidence to establish that the applicant had

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

subsequently taken possession of the said pistol from Constable Surjeet Singh or had removed it from the almirah without his permission. The allegation against the applicant is primarily founded upon the suspicion expressed by Constable Surjeet Singh that the applicant might have taken the pistol while proceeding for night patrolling duty. Such suspicion, by itself, cannot constitute substantive evidence to establish the charge of misconduct. Further, PW-11, SI Sandeep, admittedly had no personal knowledge of the alleged removal of the pistol and his deposition, insofar as it implicates the applicant, is based upon the statement attributed to Constable Surjeet Singh. The same, therefore, remains in the nature of hearsay evidence and does not provide independent corroboration of the allegation. Neither Constable Surjeet Singh's suspicion nor the statement of PW-11, based upon the version attributed to him, establishes that the applicant had actually taken or carried the missing pistol.

16. We also find that none of the prosecution witnesses has stated to have actually seen the applicant removing the pistol from the almirah. The fact that the applicant was detailed for night patrolling duty during the relevant period is not, by itself, sufficient to establish that he had taken possession of the weapon. Further, the person from whose possession the pistol was recovered, namely, Shri Lakhi Chand, was not examined during the departmental inquiry, and no evidence was brought on record to establish the circumstances in which the pistol reached the place from where it was subsequently recovered. The respondents have, thus, failed to establish any connecting link between the applicant and the recovery of the

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

missing pistol. The mere fact that the applicant was on duty during the relevant night cannot lead to an inference that he was responsible for the disappearance of the government weapon.

17. It is well settled that although the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is that of preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, the findings of misconduct must nevertheless be founded upon some cogent and relevant evidence. Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof. In the present case, the material relied upon by the respondents does not establish even a reasonable evidentiary link between the applicant and the alleged removal of the pistol. Rather, the evidence brought on record points towards serious deficiencies in the maintenance of official records concerning the custody, issuance and return of the weapon. The respondents have failed to produce any contemporaneous record or independent evidence establishing that the applicant had taken the pistol from the almirah or was in possession of it at any point of time. The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, therefore, appear to be based primarily on suspicion and hearsay statements rather than any substantive evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged misconduct.

18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the charge against the applicant is not established on the basis of the evidence adduced during the departmental inquiry. The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, as accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority, suffer from the vice of being unsupported by evidence and cannot be

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

sustained in law. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are hereby set aside. The Original Application is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the applicant all consequential benefits flowing from the setting aside of the aforesaid penalty, in accordance with the applicable rules. MA(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Dr. Sumeet Jerath)

(Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member (A)

Member (J)

/lg/

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N