Quashing departmental action and the penalty imposed by Dadwal (then additional commissioner of police) against D V Gautam, who as a sub-inspector in 1996 raided a banquet hall and arrested six people, a division bench comprising Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice V K Rao observed, "there was clearly some hanky-panky going on between Y S Dadwal and Raghubir (one of the accused) who was a man of dubious reputation and involved in several ca- ses of trafficking of women."
HC made the stinging observation after it found that on one hand the former police commissioner went after SI Gautam—based on a dubious complaint of extortion levelled by Raghubir's wife 40 days after his arrest—and on the other pushed for closure of the FIR lodged after the raid at the banquet hall. While allowing Gautam's plea to set aside the penalty, HC also slapped a cost of Rs 25,000 on Delhi government, payable to him.
The case stemmed from a raid conducted on July 31, 1996, at Kailash Hotel by a team, headed by an inspector, R P Tyagi, and comprising of Gautam and others. They found six people involved in prostitution, arrested them and lodged a case under Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act. It also recovered nearly Rs 3000 from them. All the accused were released on bail within 15 days of their arrest. HC took note of that none of the accused raised a complaint before the magistrate on being produced or before the senior police officers or their lawyers that the raiding team extracted any money from them or harassed them.
Nearly 40 days after the arrest of the accused, on September 10, 1996, Madhubala, wife of Raghubir, made a complaint to Dadwal, alleging that Gautam and other cops extorted amounts of 25,000, 20,000 and 15,000 from Raghubir and rest of the co-accused. She further alleged that the policemen took away their car for 14 days.
Dadwal asked an inspector to conduct a vigilance inquiry which concluded that the allegations were correct. While a departmental inquiry exonerated others, Gautam was held guilty and punished with forfeiture of two years of service and reduction in pay.
After Gautam failed to win relief from CAT, he approached the HC. The judges saw merit in his argument that he was not even provided with statements of those who testified against him in the inquiry and hence couldn't defend himself. He also said the testimony of some of the witnesses was recorded in his absence.
While HC found the inquiry flawed even on these technical aspects, it took exception to Dadwal's role in the case. It is most significant to note, HC said, an order passed by the additional sessions judge in 1998 (while rejecting Raghubir's plea to close the case against him and others) "records that Dadwal had assured accused Raghubir Singh the case would be closed. It is not out of place to mention that the complaint made by Raghubir's wife was addressed to Y S Dadwal."
0 comments:
Post a Comment