14 yrs after sting operation, HC says finding of guilt based on surmises

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, December 24

More than 14 years after a police official was alleged to have demanded and received bribe from two journalists in a sting operation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the finding of guilt by an inquiry officer in a domestic inquiry was based on “no evidence”, surmises and conjectures.

About the case

Advertisement

• Fourteen years ago, a police official was alleged to have demanded and received bribe from two journalists in a sting operation
• The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that the finding of guilt by an inquiry officer in a domestic inquiry was based on ‘no evidence’, surmises and conjectures
• Justice Deepak Sibal observed that the orders were admittedly based solely on the inquiry officer’s findings
• The sting operation was telecast on a news-channel, following which an FIR was registered on June 19, 2008

Making it clear that the findings could not be sustained, the Bench asserted that it would be failing in its duty by not only interfering. Setting it aside, Justice Deepak Sibal also held as unsustainable the impugned orders on pension cut by a Superintendent of Police, an Inspector-General and the Director-General of Police.

The direction came after Justice Sibal observed that the orders were admittedly based solely on the inquiry officer’s findings. The sting operation was telecast on a news-channel, following which an FIR was registered on June 19, 2008, under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner and another police official.

The petitioner was initially dismissed from service by Jind SP. But a single Judge was of the opinion that the SP had wrongly dismissed him from service, as it was practicable to hold a departmental inquiry. The State was then granted the liberty to departmentally proceed against him.

Jind Special Judge, meanwhile, acquitted the petitioner after holding that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. The judgment, dated October 30, 2009, attained finality. After considering the evidence before him, the inquiry officer, however, submitted report dated January 4, 2011, to the SP — the petitioner’s disciplinary authority.

The report said charges were not established. But the inquiry officer was of the view that the petitioner’s involvement could not be denied since his photograph was visible in the compact disc of the sting operation.

The SP then passed compulsory retirement order after following the process. Hisar Range Inspector-General of Police — the petitioner’s appellate authority — was of the view that the SP had no authority to pass such an order. He modified the punishment to a 25 per cent cut in his pension. His revision petition was then dismissed by the DGP.

“The charge against the petitioner was of having demanded and received money to falsely implicate an unknown person. As per the inquiry report, there was no evidence and, therefore, the charge was not proved. Once the inquiry officer arrived at such conclusion, his role came to an end and he should have left the matter then and there…. However, after the inquiry officer concluded that the charge against the petitioner was not proved, he went on to hold the petitioner guilty. Such a contradiction within the same inquiry report is irreconcilable,” Justice Sibal asserted, among other things.

Contradiction in findings

After the inquiry officer concluded that the charge against the petitioner was not proved, he went on to hold the petitioner guilty. Such a contradiction within the same inquiry report is irreconcilable. Justice Deepak Sibal, punjab & haryana hc