W.P(C) No.13731/2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C.) No.13731/2009 % Date of Decision: 09.12.2009 Constable Manjeet Singh …. Petitioner Through Mr.Lalta Prasad, Advocate Versus Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors …. Respondents Through Ms.Jyoti Singh with Mr.Amandeep Joshi, Advocates. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3rd November, 2008 in O.A No.304/2007, Ct.Dilbagh Singh & Anr dismissing the original application against the order dated 19th May, 2004 imposing punishment of stoppage of two increments temporarily by order dated 30th May, 2005 and the appellate order dated 4th January, 2007 whereby the departmental appeal was also dismissed. W.P(C) No.13731/2009 Page 2 of 4 Misconduct was alleged against the petitioner in approaching a printing press of Sh.Pramod Kumar Sharma at 7/352, Pandav Road, Subhash Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi and demanding a sum of Rs.1 lakh for not taking any action against him and others on the alleged information that he was indulging in printing of duplicate/fake labels. An enquiry was conducted against the petitioner where seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution and two witnesses were examined on behalf of petitioner. Major punishment of stoppage of two increments was awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner had mainly challenged the order of disciplinary authority and appellate authority on the grounds that prior approval of Additional Commissioner of Police was not taken in terms of Rule 15(2) of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980; the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the petitioner were not discussed and considered by the authorities, and; Sh.Pramod Kumar Sharma, complainant, material witness had not been examined. The Tribunal has considered the pleas and contentions of the petitioner and noted that the approval of Additional Commissioner of Police had been given, who had with application of mind opted for initiating a departmental enquiry. It had also considered the ramification of non examining Pramod Kumar Sharma, the complainant W.P(C) No.13731/2009 Page 3 of 4 since it was not denied by the petitioner that he had gone to Pandav Nagar for ulterior motives. Therefore, it was held that non examination of Sh.Pramod Kumar Sharma was not fatal. The version of the petitioner that he had gone to Pandav Nagar to apprehend an accused in a murder case was not believed, as the petitioner had not made entries in the daily diary. This cannot be disputed that judicial review is concerned with the examination of decision making process and not with the re- appreciation of evidence. The testimonies of the petitioner’s witnesses have also been considered and it has been inferred that they will not make material difference to the inferences drawn by the authorities and consequently the petition was dismissed holding that there was no error or illegality in the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the same pleas which were raised before the Tribunal. However, the learned counsel has not, in the facts and circumstances, been able to make out any ground which will entail any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 3rd November, 2008 in O.A No.304/2007, Constable Dilbagh Singh and Anr v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. W.P(C) No.13731/2009 Page 4 of 4 In the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. DECEMBER 09, 2009 VIPIN SANGHI, J. k/dp