CAT relief for 47 cops caught in tailored sting

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has quashed the Delhi Police order against 47 constables, who forfeited two years of service after being suspended for corruption.

A departmental inquiry was initiated against the constables in March 2009, after a video showed them taking money from bus operators in the city.

The constables, in their appeal before CAT, said the inquiry against them was initiated on basis of a CD made allegedly in a sting operation by complainant Chetan Prakash.

They said the CD was fabricated and cannot be relied upon as Prakash is known for his "nefarious activities and that he has inimical to the police force because his father had been dismissed from the force".

Following the inquiry, the Delhi Police had ordered "forfeiture of two years of service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in their pay and the period of suspension is treated as period not spent on duty".

The constables said the disciplinary authority, which had imposed punishment of forfeiture of four years of service on them in February last year, had mentioned that the sting was "indeed an illegitimate trap".

Quashing the order, members of the CAT bench George Paracken and Manjulika Gautam directed the Delhi Police to give the constables consequential benefits.

During adjudication of the plea, police told the bench that even if the CD is not genuine or it is tailored, many of these constables were seen accepting the money.

In response, the CAT bench said: "In our view, the respondents have totally relied upon an illegal trap, a CD which has no evidentiary value."

Please read our terms of use before posting comments
TERMS OF USE: The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
comments powered by Disqus