HC reinstates sub-inspector, says prove graft charges beyond doubt

A division bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Satish Kumar on setting aside the single judge’s order upholding the dismissal, said, “The evidence adduced on the side of the department is full of infirmities and doubtful and creates serious doubt, particularly, charges as well as nature of offence and the background of motive cannot be inferred on the basis of mere preponderance of probabilities.”

As per the case, the appellant KN Ramesh Babu, while working as Sub-Inspector of Police had faced disciplinary proceedings for demanding and accepting Rs 1,000 as illegal gratification from S Edwin Victor to release S Justin Jose the accused in Thuckalay Police Station on bail. Also, the said SI had demanded Rs 7,000 from Justin Jose for the release of the vehicle, which was detained at Thuckalay police station.

However, based on similar set of evidence, the colleague of the SI, one Manoharan was let off in the departmental proceedings while, the appellant was dismissed from service. With the appellate authority and a single judge dismissing his plea, he had preferred an appeal.

The bench while observing that though in departmental proceedings, what is required is only preponderance of probabilities to prove the charges and strict rule of evidence is not applicable, said, “It is the main case of the delinquent (SI) that he was trapped in departmental proceedings by the advocate who appeared for the accused.”

“When the serious allegation of corruption is made by the party, who has also suffered at the hands of the delinquent by filing a FIR against him, such allegations made by the affected person must be seen very seriously, since always there is an element of bias and motive attached with such allegations,” the bench said.

Further, the bench on holding that the statements given by some witnesses before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department cannot be construed as evidence at all said “Therefore, relying upon those statements by the enquiry officer, is against law. In fact, when the evidence of the interested witnesses excluded particularly, in view of the serious doubt and contradictions, there is no legal evidence available on record to prove the charges.”