TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said proceeding till disposal of the criminal case. By an order dated 23.07.1996, the said original application was disposed of by the Tribunal upon issuing some directions. In the meantime, two revolvers and one pistol were found from the Vijay Ghat Armoury. Two persons who were accused therein, inter alia, made confessions stating that the respondent had committed theft of the said two revolvers and pistol. The respondent on the basis of said confessional statements was arrested on 05.09.1997. While in police custody he also made a confession as regards his involvement in the said offence. He also led the investigating team to the room of the Vijay Ghat Armoury and pointed out the place wherefrom, he while working as a Sentry on the night of 22/23.06.1997, committed theft of two revolvers and one pistol with some of his colleagues. An identification memo. was prepared therefor wherein one Inspector Bhalle Ram was a witness. In view of the fact that apart from confession of the accused, there was no other material on records, the respondent was discharged from the criminal case by an order dated 01.08.2001. He was in the meantime dismissed from service without holding a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... you liable to be dealt under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. On or about 16.05.2002, in the said departmental proceeding, the respondent was found guilty and by an order dated 22.07.2002, he was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority, stating : I have gone through the record and facts of the file, enquiry report submitted by the E.O., defence taken by the delinquent Const. Minutely and meticulously. The charges in a disciplinary action are based on preponderance of evidence that does not exclude confession made to the police and such confessions need not be necessarily supported by recovery of material fact as enumerated in the Indian Evidence Act. In agreement of conclusion by the E.O. I find that charges are proved against the delinquent officer, if is allowed to continue in the department like Police, he not only will damage the department by his criminal activities he will also tarnish image of the police department. Therefore, I Manoj Kumar Lal, Deputy Commissioner of Police Ist Bn. DAP on being satisfied that charges on the basis of proof available on the record are proved against the def. Const. and are of such natur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondent had received due application of mind. Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that even in a disciplinary proceeding the provisions contained in Section 26 of the Evidence Act would be attracted as such confessions in police custody are ordinarily extracted by force. Even if the provisions of Section 26 of the Evidence Act, the learned counsel would submit, per se are not applicable, the principles analogous thereto would be applicable even in departmental proceedings. It was furthermore submitted that in view of the fact that the respondent was discharged from the criminal case, having regard to the provisions contained in Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1987 Rules') , the order of punishment was not sustainable. It is not in dispute that the standard of proof required in recording a finding of conviction in a criminal case and in a departmental proceeding are distinct and different. Whereas in a criminal case, it is essential to prove a charge beyond all reasonable doubt, in a departmental proceeding prepondera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecollect the date at this time because the date on the Nisandehi is not visible but Inspr. Tej Pal Singh along with his staff of AATS. Crime Branch along with accused Narender who is present today here came at Vijay Ghat. Accused had made a Nisandehi inKot and disclosed that on the night between 22/23.6.97 at about 2 to 5 am he along with other accused had stolen 2 revolvers and 1 pistol. The memo was prepared and signed by him as well as others including Const. Narender. The Memo is exhibit PW- 8/A. In the cross-examination, he was asked only four questions which together with answers rendered thereto, as recorded by the Enquiry Officer are reproduced hereinbelow : Q. No. 1 : Has the exhibit PW-8A any date written by Inspr. Tej Pal Singh ? Ans. The signature of Inspr. Tej Pal Singh is there. Q. No.2 Is there any date on his exhibit below the signature of Narender Singh ? Ans. No. Q. No.3 Has Inspr. Tej Pal Singh recovered any weapon from Const. Narender on that day ? Ans. The weapon was not recovered in his presence but IO told that the weapons have already been recovered. Q. No.4 Do you know that court decided the case on merits ? Ans. Yes. The fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect of which a complaint may be made under Section 20 of the Cattle-trespass Act, 1871 (1 of 1871). The said definition would apply, thus, both to Section 25 of the Evidence Act and Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Tribunal as also the High Court were, therefore, not correct in arriving at the finding that the said confession was not admissible even in a departmental proceeding. In Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab and Others [(1996) 10 SCC 659], this Court held : 10. Now coming to the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, it is true that a confession or admission of guilt made by a person accused of an offence before, or while in the custody of, a police officer is not admissible in a court of law according to Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872 but it is equally well settled that these rules of evidence do not apply to departmental enquiries It is now well-settled that the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in a departmental proceeding. [See Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and Others (1997) 2 SCC 699; Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank and Others (2003) 3 SCC 583; and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226. [See also State of Haryana and Another v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491] The submission of Mr. Krishnamani that there lies a distinction between the provisions of Section 25 and Section 26 of the Evidence Act, in this behalf, may although be correct but the same is not of much significance for the purpose of this case. Section 26 also speaks about confession by an accused while in custody of police. Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act although seek to achieve the same purpose but they operate in somewhat two different fields. Section 25 raises an embargo as regard proof of confession before a police officer. The same need not be in police custody; whereas Section 26 raises a bar as regard admissibility of such confession, if made by an accused in the custody of a police officer although such a confession might have been made before a person wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
