DY. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE vs SUMAN TEOTIA

Judgment text excerpt

$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11591/2019, CM APPL. 47624/2019 DY. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anshuman, Sr. PC versus SUMAN TEOTIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sudeep Shrotriya and Mr. Prakhar Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 21.01.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. This writ petition assails judgment dated 3 May 2019, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 895/20182. 2. Mr. Anshuman, learned Senior Panel Counsel appears for the petitioner and Mr. Sudeep Shrotriya, learned Counsel appears for the respondent. 3. While he was serving as Constable in the Delhi Police, FIR 1 “the Tribunal”, hereinafter 2 Smt. Suman Teotia v Deputy Commissioner of Police Signature Not Verified Signed By:MEENU W.P.(C) 11591/2019 Page 1 of 7 KALRA Signing Date:27.01.2025 13:07:31 No.171/2000 was registered against Sukram Pal Singh3, the husband of the respondent and one Constable Om Prakash, under Section 409 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the ground that they had dishonestly misappropriated ₹ 70,000/- from two accused persons who were in their custody and had divided the money half and half. The money was alleged to have been recovered from their respective residences. 4. It is not in dispute that, in the criminal proceedings which followed, Om Prakash was acquitted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 30 November 2016. However, insofar as Sukram was concerned, he expired during the pendency of the criminal case which, therefore, abated. 5. We are informed that, consequent thereupon, the amounts of ₹ 35000/- which had been allegedly recovered from the residences of Om Prakash and Sukram were also returned to them by the department