Balbir Singh Vs. Ram Pal

Balbir Singh vs Ram Pal

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 12, 2011

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/919681

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/919681
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Pradeep Nandrajog; Sunil Gaur, Jj.
Decided On: Jul 12, 2011
Case Number: W.P.(C) 2579/1998
Subject: Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Proceeding departmentally and issuing a charge sheet upon the petitioner it was alleged that while on 'A' shift duty at Gate No.10 on 13.2.1995, petitioner was found to be in possession of an excess amount. Second charge was of accepting illegal gratification while on duty; as per charge No.1. Charge sheet dated 22....

Key legal issue: Constitution

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Balbir Singh

Respondent

Ram Pal

Excerpt

proceeding departmentally and issuing a charge sheet upon the petitioner it was alleged that while on 'a' shift duty at gate no.10 on 13.2.1995, petitioner was found to be in possession of an excess amount. second charge was of accepting illegal gratification while on duty; as per charge no.1. charge sheet dated 22.3.1995, was replied to by the petitioner, he denied the charges. inquiry officer was appointed. inquiry officer submitted a report holding both the charges to be proved. we note that the truck driver could not be examined at the inquiry.1. proceeding departmentally and issuing a charge sheet upon the petitioner it was alleged that while on 'a' shift duty at gate no.10 on 13.2.1995, petitioner was found to be in possession of an excess amount. second charge was of accepting illegal gratification while on duty; as per charge no.1. 2. charge sheet dated 22.3.1995, was replied to by the petitioner, he denied the charges. 3. inquiry officer was appointed. 4. inquiry officer submitted a report holding both the charges to be proved. petitioner was supplied the findings of the inquiry officer for his response, which he did, and considering the response the disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of the inquiry officer and awarded the penalty of dismissal from service. statutory appeal filed has been rejected. 5. suffice would it be to note that the evidence which emerges is the declaration of the petitioner when he was reported to duty by making a gd entry with respect to cash he was carrying and proof of the fact that during duty hours he was found to be in possession of cash in excess by `34/-. the obvious presumption would be that this amount was received by the petitioner as illegal gratification. 6. we note that the statement of a truck driver was recorded at the spot as per which he had paid bribe to the petitioner. 7. we note that the truck driver could not be examined at the inquiry. 8. be that as it may, since none appear on behalf of the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed in default.

Full Judgment

1. Proceeding departmentally and issuing a charge sheet upon the petitioner it was alleged that while on 'A' shift duty at Gate No.10 on 13.2.1995, petitioner was found to be in possession of an excess amount. Second charge was of accepting illegal gratification while on duty; as per charge No.1.

2. Charge sheet dated 22.3.1995, was replied to by the petitioner, he denied the charges.

3. Inquiry officer was appointed.

4. Inquiry officer submitted a report holding both the charges to be proved. Petitioner was supplied the findings of the inquiry officer for his response, which he did, and considering the response the Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the inquiry officer and awarded the penalty of dismissal from service. Statutory appeal filed has been rejected.

5. Suffice would it be to note that the evidence which emerges is the declaration of the petitioner when he was reported to duty by making a GD entry with respect to cash he was carrying and proof of the fact that during duty hours he was found to be in possession of cash in excess by `34/-. The obvious presumption would be that this amount was received by the petitioner as illegal gratification.

6. We note that the statement of a truck driver was recorded at the spot as per which he had paid bribe to the petitioner.

7. We note that the truck driver could not be examined at the inquiry.

8. Be that as it may, since none appear on behalf of the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed in default.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2011 Same Parties Balbir Singh vs Ram Pal Same Subject Constitution Same Judge Pradeep Nandrajog; Sunil Gaur, Jj.

Constitution