TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1834
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rse and hence untenable. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner denied the charge of taking any bribe of Rs. 500/- from Pooran Lal a chak holder and resident of village concerned, inasmuch as he denied to have been paid any bribe of Rs. 500/- as claimed in the first information report lodged against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in which petitioner finally stood acquitted from the charge by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Act vide judgment dated 09.11.2016 passed in criminal case no. 24 of 2003 arising out of case crime no. 676 of 2002 under Section 7 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Countering the submissions, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents defended the order of dismissal from service as according to him once petitioner himself admitted that Pooran Lal put Rs. 500/- in his pocket, this itself had sufficiently proved the charge, may be for attending circumstance he might have pleaded that he was trapped. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel further defended the imposition of punishment awarded to the petitioner on the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the order of suspension has been examined by the Court in a large number of cases, particularly in State of M.P. v. Shardul Singh [(1970) 1 SCC 108], P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller & Auditor General [(1993) 1 SCC 419 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 206 : (1993) 23 ATC 645], ESI v. T. Abdul Razak [(1996) 4 SCC 708 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1061], Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. [(1988) 4 SCC 319 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 950], Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan [AIR 1960 SC 806], U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Sanjiv Rajan [1993 Supp (3) SCC 483 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 67 : (1993) 25 ATC 764], State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena [(1996) 6 SCC 417 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1455], Prohibition and Excise Deptt. v. L. Srinivasan [(1996) 3 SCC 157 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 686 : (1996) 33 ATC 745] and Allahabad Bank v. Deepak Kumar Bhola [(1997) 4 SCC 1 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 897], wherein it has been observed that even if a criminal trial or enquiry takes a long time, it is ordinarily not open to the court to interfere in case of suspension as it is in the exclusive domain of the competent authority who can always review its order of suspension being an inherent power conferred upon them by the provisions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B of erstwhile U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act and so Pooran Lal was seeking an appropriate opportunity to implicate him falsely and it was on 21.08.2002 that everything was preplanned and Pooran Lal deliberately tried to place Rs. 500/- into the pocket of the petitioner to take it as he was in extreme urgency to rush to his village where his son had suffered gunshot injury and when petitioner refused to take money then he deliberately tried to put the same in his hand. It is in this process, currency note fell on the ground which was picked up by another person staying beside him and he again tried to put currency in the hand of the petitioner,but petitioner refused and in the meanwhile the other person who had currency note in his hand framed petitioner for charge of corrupt practise stating that currency was recovered from his pocket. They claimed to be men of vigilance department as Deputy Superintendent, vigilance and constable and asked petitioner to accompany them. When petitioner refused, they forcefully took him to Kotwali (Head Police Station). He denied to have taken any rupee from Pooran Lal on 21.8.2002. To better appreciate the statement given by petitioner and the same is reprodu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....बताया परन्तु आज तक प्रार्थना पत्र प्राप्त नहीं हुआ। पैमाइश का कोई प्रार्थना पत्र मेरे पास ही नहीं आया न मैंने पैमाइश हेतु कोई रिश्वत मांगी। पूरन लाल इसलिए मुझसे रंजिश मानता था कि वह चक नम्बर 315 व 317 के बीच में é....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thority, I do not find there to be any discussion as to how charge could be brought home when nobody took money from the pocket of the delinquent employee and delinquent employee repeatedly complained that recovery of currency note was falsely being attributed from his possession at the instance of Pooran Lal. Even disciplinary authority, I find, has not discussed as to how recovery of currency was attributable to possession of the petitioner when currency note had felled on the ground as stated and another person standing beside the petitioner took the same in his hand. There is no finding as to whether currency note was socked in any chemical and that sample was collected then and there which ultimately established that this currency note had been taken by the petitioner in his own hand. It is true that in the case of disciplinary proceeding preponderance of probability plays the crucial role than in cases of criminal law where guilt is required to be proved to the hilt but if one looks at the entire circumstances where petitioner had been taken into custody but nobody claimed that currency was recovered from his possession, it may be difficult to believe that delinquent emplo....