IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 23 of 2005 Smt. Tulsi Devi D/o Anand Lal and others (Legal representatives of deceased – appellant Anand Lal) ......... Appellants Versus Deputy Inspector General of Police, Garhwal Range, Dehradun and another. ........ Respondents ..................... Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. V.K. GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) This is a case where conduct unbecoming of police officials came to surface, which led to initiation of disciplinary proceedings against five police officials, one of whom was late Anand Lal, the appellant in this appeal, who has, after his death, been succeeded by his legal representatives. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on Jai Deep Singh Negi, an undertrial, was lodged in Parui jail and had to be escorted in police custody for being produced in a Court at Sahadra, Delhi. On 02.12.1997, this undertrial, was taken by a team of five police officials in common vehicle no. U.P. 86- 2299 for being produced in a Court at Sahadra, Delhi. 3. The charge against the five officials including Anand Lal, deceased- appellant, was that instead of following the normal route via Kotdwar, the police party went via Pauri-Srinagar and this was apparently to facilitate Jai Deep Singh Negi to undertake his nefarious activities of extortion of money and liquor from some liquor stores on the way. The specific allegation is that Jai Deep Singh Negi actually stopped at few liquor stores, extorted various sums of money as well as obtained liquor bottles from these liquor stores. 4. The police officials were charge-sheeted and the enquiry followed, which was conducted by an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. In the course of enquiry, various witnesses appeared including the shop-keepers and their employees, who stated in no uncertain terms that Jai Deep Singh Negi, undertrial, had come to their liquor stores, extorted various sums of money and obtained through intimidation liquor bottles. All this happened while Jai Deep Singh Negi was in the custody of aforesaid police team and while in such custody, was being carried from Pauri to Sahdara, Delhi. 5. As a result of the enquiry and the acceptance of the report by the Disciplinary Authority, all the five officials including deceased Anand Lal were dismissed from service. 6. The writ petitions filed by them, including Writ Petition No. 2636 (S/S) of 2001 filed by deceased Anand Lal, were dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 06.04.2004. It is against this judgment that deceased Anand Lal filed this Special Appeal. 7. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, while taking us through the impugned judgment and the record of the writ petition, more particularly, the charge-sheet and the report of the Enquiry Officer submitted that it was a case of no evidence and, therefore, the penalty of dismissal from services is wholly untenable in law. He also submitted that deceased appellant Anand Lal was performing his duties as a driver and he could not be associated with the charged act of misconduct by other police officials since he, as a driver, had to obey the orders of the head of the team escorting Jai Deep Singh Negi. 8. On both the counts, we express our inability to agree with Mr. Manoj Tiwari, the learned counsel for the appellants. On going through the charge-sheet as well as the report of the Enquiry Officer, we have no hesitation in holding that this at all cannot be a case of no evidence because ample evidence was produced, unimpeachable as well as reliable, to enable the Enquiry Officer to come to the conclusion that, indeed, the charged officials had committed mis-conduct and had indulged in acts unbecoming of the police officials. A perusal of the material on record unmistakably suggests to us that they not only facilitated the aforesaid nefarious activities of Jai Deep Singh Negi, but also connived with him in executing these activities. Out of the five police officials, one odd person cannot be singled out for a favourable treatment because in the peculiar facts of this case, it is impossible to segregate one or two from the other three or four police officials. They all constituted a team and the entire blame should be shared by and attributed to all of them. 9. The learned Single Judge, on proper appreciation of all aspects has rightly dismissed the writ petition and we see no reason to take a contrary view. 10. The appeal is dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 18.02.2008 18.02.2008 A