9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at when assessment of income, consequential to search-drive made against Prateek Joshi has been done by not referring those entries, then dragging the petitioner in disciplinary proceeding unnecessarily would obviously tantamount to causing injustice with him and such exercise and the charge-sheet can be held purely illegal. It a fit case where this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can quash the charge-sheet - charge-sheet (Annexure-P/2) is purely illegal, based on vague charge bereft of foundation and issued only on assumption and suspicion, therefore, is not sustainable. Obviously, the issuance of such charge-sheet causes prejudice to the petitioner because he being a young police officer, would be deprived from further promotion on mere pretext of pending disciplinary proceeding. We deem it apposite to emphasize on the enunciation of law in re V.C. Shukla [ 1998 (3) TMI 675 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Supreme Court has categorically observed that if there is no evidence that the prosecution except the diaries, handbook and loose sheets with regard to alleged payments but on the basis of those evidence, nothing can b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the search drive of the Income Tax Department against Shri Prateek Joshi, some loose papers containing alleged unaccounted cash transaction was found and only on the basis of such entries, an undue inference was drawn that the petitioner had handed over an amount of Rs.7.5 Crore to Shri Prateek Joshi and on that foundation, the respondents initiated disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. A charge-sheet was issued on 24.02.2021 labeling a charge against that in the search against Shri Prateek Joshi some entries were detected in loose paper showing an amount of Rs.7.5 Crore and as such it was presumed that the petitioner paid Rs.7.5 Crore in cash and such conduct falls within the misconduct and is violative to the provisions of Section 3(1)(i), (iii) and 5(1) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. 4 . Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that such entry runs short of any evidentiary value and nothing substantial can be inferred or brought out to the surface. He submitted that a bare look to those entries there contains a name of one Arun Mishra and another column i.e. of debit shows 750 is written, therefore, it was presumed that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies in loose papers/sheets are irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence. Such loose papers are not book of account and the entries therein are not sufficient to charge a person with liability. Even if books of account are regularly kept in the ordinary course of business, the entries therein shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. It is incumbent upon the person relying upon those entries to prove that they are in accordance with facts . Moreso, Shri Nema relied on another decision of the Supreme Court in re Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla and Others (1998) 3 SCC 410 wherein it has been held as under:- In the present case there is no evidence against the petitioners except the diaries, note books and the loose sheet with regard to the alleged payments. The said evidence is of such a nature which cannot be converted into legal evidence against the petitioners, in view of my above discussion. There is no evidence in the instant case with regard to the monies which are alleged to have been, received by Jains for the purpose of disbursement. There is no evidence with regard to the disbursement of the amount. Then there is no e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sider as to whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts have been excluded therefrom. Inference on facts must be based on evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles .. 8 . Shri Nema further submitted that the charges cannot be based upon assumption and suspicions. To reinforce, he relied upon a decision in re Paresh Chandas Datta v. Collector of Calcutta 1978(2) CLJ 316 wherein it is held that mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic inquiries and thus, a charge sheet based upon such mere suspicion is bad and liable to be set aside and quashed. Adding one more feather to his cap, Shri Nema submitted that similar is the view taken in re Samarendra Narayan Ghose v. State of West Bengal and Others 1983 SCC OnLine Cal 204 . 9 . Over and above, Shri Nema argued that the charge-sheet is bad in law as is infested with vagueness based only on certain loose papers and vaguely-scribbled diary-entries allegedly seized from a third and unknown person, have been maliciously given the effect of being admis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Som Arora), Jagpin (Jagdish Agrawal), RKM, Nitin, Offshore, Vindhyachal, GG, A Mishra, Chandresh, Taat, Wonder/wonder cement, LC, DVS, SSV, Aditya Tripathi, Dr. CS, NR, Sanjeev Singh MLA, Tribal MLA. Please explain in details the identity of these persons/entities and the nature of transactions undertaken by you with these entities/persons. A19 To reiterate my statement as given in response to Q9, I have received/paid cash from all these entities/parties on instruction of Ashwin Sharma. Cash was received in office and then the same was brought to my home by me. Cash was brought to the office of Ashwin Sharma by various people concerned to the parties. Som Arora (J Arora); I don t know Jagpin (Jagdish Agrawal); it s a company owned by Jagdish Agrwal. I don t know where this company is located. RKM; I don t know. Sanjeev Singh MLA; he is friend of Ashwin Sharma who is MLA. I have given him cash on instruction of Ashwin Sharma. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was no reference of said entry in the said assessment. 11 . In contrast, Shri Kekre, learned Government Advocate opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that in the imputation of charge and the statement appended with the charge-sheet, it is specified that the petitioner has handed over Rs.7.5 Crore in cash contained in three bags to Shri Prateek Joshi and that imputation was essentially an elaborate interpretation of said loose paper entries. He submitted that at this stage quashing the charge-sheet by this Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be proper. Making referral to the return submitted by the respondents and stand taken therein, only because scope of interference in the matter of disciplinary proceeding exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been discussed and that the charge can only be ascertained to be correct or not when enquiry is conducted and material is placed before the enquiry officer, Shri Kekre propounded that the charge-sheet does not prejudice the petitioner and it cannot be quashed at this stage. 12 . I have anxiously heard t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
