TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1633
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner asked the complainant to pay a bribe of Rs. 20,000/- for sending his report for grant of Arms licence and after some negotiation the petitioner reduced the amount to Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant, thus, handed over a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the petitioner, recorded the conversation and provided a CD of the same later on. 4. It is further alleged that the petitioner contacted the complainant to meet him in the evening at P.S. Vikaspuri for collecting the remaining balance amount of Rs. 9,000/-. 5. On 15.01.2014, the complaint was marked to Inspector B.K. Singh for investigation. Inspector B.K. Singh confirmed the facts mentioned in the complaint in the presence of panch witness Sh. Karamchand s/o Sh. Kashiram posted as UDC, Industries Department, 419, FIE Patparganj, New Delhi. 6. Thereafter, during raid proceedings, on instructions of Inspector Rakesh Kumar, the complainant Mr. Ravneet Singh handed over GC Notes of Rs. 9,000/- smeared with phenolphthalein powder to the petitioner on his demand. 7. Subsequently, on personal search of the accused/petitioner 10 GC notes of denomination of 500 and 4 notes of Rs. 1,000/- amounting to a total of Rs. 9,000/- were recovere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Johnson Jacob asked the complainant to come into the Police Station. ⮚That SI Johnson Jacob met Sh. Ravneet Singh at his residence on 12.01.2014 and called him to the Police Station for verification on 13.01.14. ⮚ The complainant went to the police station and was asked to pay Rs. 20,000 as a bribe. The complainant asked to reduce the amount and it was agreed that he would pay an amount of Rs. 10,000 to SI Johnson Jacob. The complainant paid Rs. 1,000 to him. ⮚It was alleged that SI Johnson Jacob demanded Rs.20,000 as a bribe for clearing the report of Sh. Ravneet Singh for grant of Arms License and the same was agreed to by the latter party. ⮚ The complainant recorded the conversation, wherein he was asked to come and pay the pending amount of Rs.9,000 in the evening. ⮚ The conversation of demand for bribe was recorded by Sh. Ravneet Singh on his mobile phone, but the same could not be authenticated. ⮚ SI Johnson Jacob was caught red handed on the spot by the staff of Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi on 15.01.2014. The bribe of Rs. 9,000 was then recovered from him and then a criminal case was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In this case, the complainant himself deposed during the departmental enquiry that he offered a bribe for his timely verification and the petitioner herein declined it. The recording of the demand and subsequent filing of FIR by the complainant seems vitiated and not reliable under circumstances discussed above. 14. From the above departmental enquiry, it is noted that the complainant himself deposed that on the spot of the raid, he tried to give the currency but he was not successful in doing the same and the money fell on the ground. It was only after the raid, that one member of the team collected the currency from the ground. He even did not count the same and denomination is not certain. It was further noted that the currency was not even counted and it was not certain that the same was ever in the hands of the petitioner. 15. It is argued before me, that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings, is based on preponderance of probability, which is lower than the standard of proof in criminal proceedings, where the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. [paragraph 7 of the judgment of Ashoo Surendranath (supra)] 16. If the department has not been able ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ght to distinguish the Judgment of "Ashoo Surendranath Tewari V. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr" (supra) by relying on the judgment of "State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi" (2012) 9 SCC 685. It has held as follows: "24. Therefore, in our opinion, the High court quashed the prosecution on total misreading of the judgment in the case of P.S. Rajya (Supra). In fact, there are precedents, to which we have referred to above, that speak eloquently a contrary view i.e. exoneration in departmental proceedings ipso facto would not lead to exoneration or acquittal in a criminal case. On principle also, this view commends us. It is well settled that the standard of proof in department proceedings is lower than that of criminal prosecution. It is equally well settled that the departmental proceeding or for that matter criminal cases have to be decided only on the basis of evidence adduced therein. Truthfulness of the evidence in the criminal case can be judged only after the evidence is adduced therein and the criminal case can not be rejected on the basis of the evidence in the departmental proceeding or the report of the Inquiry Officer based on those evid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Selection Grade or Entry Grade of the Service and not against any specific post included in the Service. 12. Posting - Every member of the Service allocated to an Administration shall, unless he is appointed to an ex-cadre post, or is otherwise not available for holding a duty post owing to the exigencies of the public service, be posted against a duty post under the Administration by the Administrator concerned. 13. Allocation of members of the Service - The Government shall, from time to time, allocate a member of the Service to any Administration for posting in terms of rule 12." 72) It is argued that under the DANICS Rules, as per Rule 2(a) "Administration" means the GNCTD, as per Rule 2(b) "Administrator" means the Administrator of NCTD and as per Rule 2(k) "Government" means the Government of India. Thus, while it is the Government of India that makes an officer available to GNCTD under Rule 13, the posting of that DANICS officer within the NCTD is to be made by the Administrator on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. 78) From the respective arguments of the parties reproduced above, it becomes clear that following asp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the validity of Notifications dated 23-7-2014 and 21-05-2015." 22. The relevant portion of the notification dated 21.05.15 passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs reads as under: "The Anti Corruption Branch Police Station shall not take any cognizance of offences against Officers, Employees and Functionaries of the Central Government." 23. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedural laws are retrospective in their operation unless otherwise specified. Thus, the ACB cannot investigate into the offences pertaining to Central Government employees i.e the petitioner herein falls under the Ministry of Home Affairs and any action taken by ACB would be impermissible and contrary to law. 24. On the other hand, Ms. Nandita Rao has drawn my attention to the judgment of 'Prem Chand v Union of India & Ors‟, passed by this Court in W.P (CRL) 1147/2015 dated 27.05.2015, wherein the notification of 2015 relied upon by the petitioner in Government (NCTD) v. Union of India has been upheld. 25. The judgment of Prem Chand v. Union of India (supra), categorically holds that the notification of May, 2015 is not retrospective in view of the exc....