Mukhtiar Singh vs State of Punjab

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Mukhtiar Singh, an official of Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as, �the Board�) has assailed his conviction recorded by the Court of Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide its judgment dated 1st March, 2002 u/s 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, �the Act�). The appellant was sentenced as under:

under Section 7 of the Act RI for six months. under Section 13(2) of the Act RI for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- in default RI for one month.

Complainant Karamjit Singh PW-2 had approached Kashmir Singh Bhinder, DSP (Vigilance), Fatehgarh Sahib on 29th November, 1999, who had recorded statement Ex.PA of the complainant. The complainant stated that he was an agriculturist and at his residence, an electricity meter was installed on his name. The monthly bill of electricity was paid by him every month. The meter was checked by Mukhtiar Singh, Meter Reader, PSEB, Bharri. In spite of the complainant paying the bill every month, the Meter Reader used to say that the bill received by the complainant was not commensurate with the electricity consumed. For this reason, he threatened the complainant that he will get the electricity meter disconnected, as the complainant was committing theft of electricity by applying a hook on the line. The Meter Reader also disclosed that a heavy penalty shall be imposed upon the complainant. On 29th November, 1999 at about 10.00 p.m., Mukhtiar Singh Meter Reader, PSEB Bharri met the complainant at the flour mill of Zorawar Singh son of Banta Singh, resident of village Bhamiyan and told him that he indulged in theft of electricity, therefore, due to this reason the electricity bill received was less than the electricity consumed and Rs. 500/- should be paid as bribe, otherwise the electricity meter would be disconnected. On the entreaties made by the complainant that he was a poor man, Mukhtiar Singh Meter Reader agreed to accept Rs. 300/-. Since the complainant was not possessing the amount, he had advanced an excuse, upon which the appellant told that the amount of Rs. 300/- be given in the afternoon, otherwise he would make a complaint and get the meter disconnected. The complainant was not inclined to pay the illegal gratification, therefore, he, accompanied by Zorawar Singh son of Banta Singh, presented himself before the DSP (Vigilance), Fatehgarh Sahib and handed over three currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each. Statement of the complainant was recorded and the same was read over to him, who in token of its correctness appended his signatures. The serial numbers of the currency notes were noted. Phenolphthalein powder was applied to the currency notes and personal search of the complainant Karamjit Singh was carried. The complainant was made to understand that the currency notes, upon which the powder was applied, were to be handed over to the appellant. After putting water in a glass Sodium Carbonate was mixed and stirred but the colour of the water did not change. Then in the same mixture, a piece of paper stained with Phenolphthalein powder was put in and stirred. The colour of the mixture turned into light Pink and this demonstration was shown to the witness and a memo to this effect was prepared. As per the scheme, the raiding party along with the complainant Karamjit Singh and the shadow witness Zorawar Singh proceeded to the spot. The witnesses were instructed that the moment Mukhtiar Singh Meter Reader accepts the bribe, immediately a signal to the raiding party be relayed after putting hand on the head. The payment of bribe on the part of Mukhtiar Singh constituted offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act and therefore, a ruqa was sent to the Police Station for registration of the case. The police proceedings were concluded on 29th November, 1999 at 2.15 p.m. Babu Singh, Senior Assistant, Treasury Office, Fatehgarh Sahib was associated with the raiding party. He was introduced to the complainant and the shadow witnesses. When the raiding party reached the office of Electricity Board, the witnesses found the appellant present in his office. The witnesses had offered the amount of bribe, which was accepted by the appellant. On a signal given by the shadow witness in the presence of independent witness, recovery was effected. Hand of the appellant was caught hold from his wrist and a glass of water was arranged. Sodium Carbonate was added in the water and the appellant was made to wash his fingers in the mixture so prepared. The colour of the mixture changed into light Pink. The mixture thereafter, was put in the nip and a parcel was prepared and sealed. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the left pocket of the shirt worn by the appellant. A comparison of the notes recovered was carried with the memo already prepared. The same duly tallied and were taken into custody vide memo Ex.PE, which was attested by Karamjit Singh, Babu Singh and Zorawar Singh. The appellant was made to change his shirt and the shirt worn by him was also taken into possession. A rough site plan of the spot was prepared and thereafter the raiding party returned to the Police Station, where the case property was deposited with the Moharrir Head Constable with seals intact. The nip containing the mixture was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and a report Ex.P-15 was received which was positive and against the appellant.

After the statements of the witnesses u/s 161 were recorded, investigation was concluded and a report u/s 173 was submitted.

After completion of the formalities, the appellant was chargesheeted by the Court of Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. The charge stated that on 29th November, 1999 at 2.15 p.m. in the area of village Bharri while posted as a Meter Reader in the office Punjab State Electricity Board, Bharri, appellant had demanded Rs. 300/- as bribe from Karamjit Singh and thus, committed an offence punishable u/s 7 of the Act. The charge further stated that by abusing his official position, the appellant had accepted the bribe of Rs. 300/- through illegal means and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 13(2) of the Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Karamjit Singh complainant appeared as PW-2 and stated that he was living in village Bhamia. He had an electricity meter installed on his name at his house. Mukhtiar Singh appellant while posted as a Meter Reader in the Board used to visit the house of this witness to note meter reading. He was confronting this witness with the fact that the bill received was less than the actual consumption and that this witness was making theft of the electricity. On 29th November, 1999 at 10.00 a.m. he had demanded Rs. 500/- and threatened that in case the said amount is not paid the electricity connection shall be disconnected. Then he agreed to accept Rs. 300/-. This witness, on the pretext that he was not having money, had put off the appellant to pay the amount in the afternoon and accompanied by his uncle Zorawar Singh approached the DSP (Vigilance), Fatehgarh Sahib and made a statement Ex.PA, which he had signed in token of its correctness. Phenolphthalein powder was applied to the currency notes and Babu Singh independent witness was introduced. Accompanied by the raiding party they reached at the office of the Electricity Board. The appellant was sitting there. Thereafter, as per the procedure, which has been noticed above, this witness had handed over Rs. 300/- to the appellant, a memo of which was prepared. The appellant after receiving the amount put the same in the left pocket of his shirt. Zorawar Singh gave a signal and the appellant was apprehended. The appellant was made to wash his hands in the mixture, the colour of which changed into light Pink. The currency notes Ex.P3 to P5 were recovered. The shirt of the appellant was also washed in fresh/clean water. The colour of this water also turned into Pink. In cross examination, this witness stated that it is not in his knowledge if he had told in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that DSP had offered himself for search of the appellant to be conducted. This witness further stated that Zorawar Singh was not his real uncle but uncle in the brotherhood. This witness admitted that Subeg Singh was brother of Zorawar Singh and on the complaint made by Subeg Singh, Manjit Kumar Puri, Revenue Assistant PSEB, Bharri was apprehended in a corruption case. Karamjit Singh PW-2 was not a witness in that case. This witness stated that it is not in his knowledge that Subeg Singh received Rs. 25000/- as a reward from the Government for getting Manjit Kumar Puri apprehended in a corruption case. The complainant further stated that Mukhtiar Singh had not filed any complaint against him. However, he agreed that there was a separate enforcement staff of the Electricity Board for detecting theft of the power and the members of the staff also used to visit his house and the flour mill. The suggestion that the appellant was helping Manjit Kumar Puri was denied. This witness stated that the appellant had demanded bribe at his house and it was settled that the same be paid at the flour mill. He denied the suggestion that he, Zorawar Singh and Subeg Singh were police witnesses and were in a habit of involving the public servants in false corruption cases and that they used to make their livelihood in this manner. The following suggestion given to this witness by the appellant is interesting to be noticed:

It is wrong to suggest that the appellant had come to our village for meter reading and further that I and Zorawar Singh called him on the pretext of serving tea and in the tea we mixed some drug and after taking the tea appellant Mukhtiar Singh became unconscious and remained lying on the cot. It is wrong to suggest that thereafter I and Zorawar Singh connived with the police of Vigilance Bureau and falsely involved the appellant.

Zorawar Singh shadow witness appeared as PW-3 and fully supported the prosecution. In cross examination, he admitted that the flour mill was joint with all the brothers and was in the name of Subeg Singh. He denied the suggestion that Manjit Kumar Puri, Revenue Assistant of PSEB was apprehended at the instance of Subeg Singh. He stated that he was arrested on the complaint made by Gurdev Singh, another brother of this witness. At that time, he was in the Army. This witness further stated that DSP (Vigilance) had taken the tainted currency notes from the pocket of the appellant. He denied the suggestion that his brother Subeg Singh was a police witness.

Babu Singh, Senior Assistant, Treasury Office, Fatehgarh Sahib appeared as PW-4. He was joined as an independent witness. He supported the case of the prosecution. The testimony of this witness reveals that the recovery of tainted currency notes was effected in his presence by the DSP. He was witness to the scene, after the bribe was accepted and the raiding party reached at the spot. In cross examination, he stated that it was not in his knowledge that in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. it is written that the appellant himself took out the tainted currency notes and had handed over the same to the police on the asking of DSP. Attention of this witness was drawn to his previous statement Ex.DB, where this fact was not stated in the manner, but it was stated that on search according to law, tainted currency notes of Rs. 300/-were recovered from the pocket of the appellant. This witness stated that the DSP had shown him the currency notes, which were recovered. The serial numbers of such notes were told to him before they had left the Police Station. The numbers of the notes were compared after the recovery was effected. The appellant was apprehended at about 3.15 p.m. This witness denied the suggestion that he was under the influence of the Vigilance Staff and had made a false statement.

Ram Sarup PW-1, who was posted as UDC in the office of Executive Engineer, PSEB Khanna, proved sanction Ex.P1 granted by the Additional Superintending Engineer. Since counsel for the appellant has assailed sanction letter on various grounds, it will be apposite here to reproduce the cross examination of this witness, which reads as under:

The sanction rough draft was firstly sent to the XEN and thereafter it correct and its/draft was sent to the XEN along with papers. The rough draft was received from office of Deputy Superintendent Operation Circle PSEB, Khanna. This rough draft was draft by the Steno of the XEN. However, this was produced before the XEN by me and not by the Steno. This draft was sent to XEN and while after comparing him and the XEN returned the same after signing the draft. It is incorrect to suggest that the draft was signed by him after applying any mind.

HC Gurbej Singh PW-5 had tendered his affidavit Ex.P9. This witness was of formal nature. He stated that he had received ruqa at 3.45 p.m. and thereafter the case was registered.

Constable Harminder Singh PW-6 also tendered his affidavit as Ex.P10 to prove link evidence.

Narinder Singh Clerk from the office of Executive Engineer, PSEB Khanna appeared as PW-7. He brought the summoned record. He proved service book of the appellant and the copy of his appointment letter as Chowkidar. The appointment letter was Ex.P12. He also placed on record order of posting Ex.P13 whereby the appellant, who was appointed as a Chowkidar, was asked to work as a Meter Reader on temporary basis. This witness stated that initially the appointment of the appellant was as a Chowkidar and then he was made Regular Bill Distributor. Thereafter, the appellant was given temporary duty of a Meter Reader, because of non-availability of the Meter Reader.

Kashmir Singh Bhinder, DSP (Rural), Sub Division Pathankot appeared as PW-8 and proved various facets of the investigation. He stated that they started from his office to the office of the appellant. Near the office of the appellant, there was a flour mill at Bhamiyan. He further stated that Karamjit Singh and Zorawar Singh were sent to the office of the appellant to hand over the tainted currency notes on the demand made by the appellant and after receipt of appointed signal, police party including Babu Singh independent witness reached at office of the appellant. The procedure prescribed was followed and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the pocket of shirt of the appellant. He was subjected to a lengthy cross examination, but the defence failed to elicit any meaningful answer, which could be advantageous to it.

Prosecution tendered the report of Forensic Science Laboratory as Ex.P15 and closed its evidence. Thereafter, statement of the appellant u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and all incriminating circumstances were put to him. He denied the same and gave his version as under:

The PWs are deposing falsely being interested in the success of the case and Karamjit Singh and Zorawar Singh wanted to receive Rs. 25000/- as award from the Govt. which they have received and only for this amount they have implicated me in the false case. My posting was in Sub Divisional Office, Bharri. Manjit Kumar Revenue Officer of Sub Divisional Office, Bharri was arrested by DSP, F/Sahib as red handed capture in F/Sahib whose case is pending in this Court on the complaint of Gurdev Singh brother of Zorawar Singh PW. My village adjoins vill. Bhamian. Zorawar Singh and Gurdev Singh and Subegh Singh are real brothers and they were suspecting me that I was helping Manjit Kumar and so the Vigilance Officer of Fatehgarh Sahib were also annoyed with me on account of this suspicion. I was passing near the flour mill of Zorawar Singh, Gurdev Singh and Subegh Singh. They called me and offered tea mixed with some intoxicant. After taking tea I slept on the cot lying in flour mill of Gurdev Singh after some time officials of Vigilance Bureau, F/Sahib awakened me and took me to the office of DSP, Vigilance, F/Sahib and fabricated all the formalities of this case there for my false implication only to get reward. I am a poor man and I was not in a position to demand any bribe.

In defence, Vijay Bhatia Junior Assistant from the office of Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Patiala was examined as DW-1 to say that for registration of a case against Mukhtiar Singh, the Government had paid Rs. 25,000/- as reward to Karamjit Singh complainant.

HC Jagdeep Singh DW-2 from the office of Vigilance Bureau appeared and stated that Swaran Singh Assistant Cashier from the Treasury Office, Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib and Labh Singh an employee from the office of District Treasury Office, Fatehgarh Sahib were facing prosecution in a corruption case.

I have heard Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

In the present case, appellant appellant had given a suggestion to the witnesses and had further reiterated the same in his statement recoded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that he was offered tea mixed with some intoxicant by the witnesses, due to which he slept on the flour mill and later-on was awakened by the officials of the Vigilance Bureau and a case was fabricated against him for the sake of reward, which was announced by the Punjab Government. The Punjab Government had announced a scheme that if any person from the public got a public servant arrested while accepting bribe, out of the Government Treasury Rs. 25,000/- would be given as reward to that person. Therefore, the appellant claimed himself to be a victim at the instance of the witnesses, who for the gain of Rs. 25,000/-, had falsely implicated him.

Mr. Pheruman has not challenged the three essential ingredients i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery, which the prosecution is bound to prove in a case where the appellant is caught red-handed while accepting illegal gratification. Rather the entire attack has been mounted to assail the sanction order Ex.P1. It is contended that sanction was not granted by the competent officer and the validity of the sanction has been questioned on various grounds.

Mr. Pheruman has filed Criminal Misc. No. 62519 of 2009 to incorporate an additional ground in the grounds of appeal. Mr. Pheruman has read this additional ground, pleaded in the grounds of appeal, which stated that in the present case, sanction Ex. P1 was granted by the Additional Superintending Engineer. It is stated that in the challan and in the charge, the appellant had been described as a Meter Reader. It is further case of the prosecution that the appellant in his capacity as a Meter Reader, had accepted the illegal gratification and as per the Punjab State Electricity Board Class-III Service Rules, the post of Meter Reader fall under Class-III and the competent authority to punish a Meter Reader is General Manager/Engineer-in-chief/Chief Engineer. Thus, Additional Superintending Engineer (Operation) was not a competent authority to grant sanction and no cognizance could be taken on the basis of an invalid sanction. It has been prayed that the appellant was entitled to acquittal on this score.

In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon �Dr. Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab� 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 525 and it has been urged that valid sanction is a condition precedent or prerequisite for taking cognizance of an offence and the sanction required u/s 19 of the Act ought to be granted before any cognizance is taken by the trial Court.

Further reliance has been placed upon Rule No. 4 and 16 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Class-III Service Rules. It is stated that as per these rules, in a case of Lineman, Substation Attendant, Meter Reader, Test Mechanic and Telephone Mechanic, the appointing authority is General Manager/Engineer-in-chief/Chief Engineer and they are also competent to remove these officials. It will be pertinent to mention here that in case of Class-IV employees appointed in the subordinate offices, Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer or any officer of the equal rank, are the punishing authorities, who can impose any major punishment including removal of service.

In the present case, the sanction has been granted by Additional Superintending Engineer, who is above the Executive Engineer, therefore, he holds a rank higher than the Executive Engineer and equal rank to the Superintending Engineer. Therefore, to answer the argument raised by counsel for the appellant, this Court has to determine the following two questions:

(a) Whether the appellant, who is appointed as a Chowkidar and was discharging the duties in a substantive rank of Meter Reader, is to be treated as a Class-III employee or a Class-IV employee?

(b) In case the appellant is held to be a Class-IV employee, then the sanction Ex.P1 granted by the Additional Superintending Engineer is to be considered valid or not?

Whether the description of the appellant in report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. and in the charge that he was posted as a Meter Reader had caused any prejudice or not?

Relying upon �State of Karnataka v. C. Nagarajaswamy� 2005 (4) RCR (Cri) 511, it was urged that since the sanction was not granted by the competent authority and was not a valid one, the entire trial will vitiate and the appellant is entitled to acquittal. Furthermore, to fortify this submission, Amar Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, has been pressed into service and it was contended that mere obtaining of sanction is not enough, it has to be a valid sanction after the authority competent has fully acquainted itself with the facts and made an order after applying its mind. To pick the thread further, learned Counsel has relied upon Deewan Chand Vs. State, to say that the sanction was granted considering the appellant as a Meter Reader, therefore, there was no application of mind. Another judgment cited before this Court is State Inspector of Police Vs. Surya Sankaram Karri, . The relevant portion of this judgment reads as under:

This question came for consideration before this Court in Sailendra Nath Bose v. State of Bihar AIR 1968 SC 1292, wherein it was categorically held:

P.W.1 deposed that the appellant was a Class III officer and that he could have been appointed or dismissed by the Deputy Agent Personnel who is subordinate to him. Therefore he (P.W.1) was competent to grant previous sanction u/s 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. P.W.1�s assertion that the appellant could have been removed from his office either by the Deputy Agent Personnel or by himself was challenged in his cross-examination. The trial Court as well as the High Court have relied on the oral evidence of P.W.1 in coming to the conclusion that the sanction granted is valid. In our opinion those courts erred in relying on oral evidence in deciding the validity of the sanction granted. Hence, we asked the learned Counsel for the respondent to satisfy us with reference to the rules on the subject that P.W.1 was competent to remove the appellant from his office. For this purpose we granted him several adjournments. Though our attention has now been invited to some rules, those rules do not establish that P.W.1 was competent to grant the sanction in question.

As per Rule 134 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, published in 1959, authorities competent to make first appointment to non-gazetted posts in the Indian Railways are the General Manager, the Chief Administrative Officer or lower authority to whom he may delegate power. There is no evidence to show that this power has been delegated to the heads of the department. No provision in the Indian Railway Establishment Code, 1959 prescribing the authorities competent to remove from office a class III officer was brought to our notice. But the prefatory note to Vol.I of the Code says, �The revised Chapter XVII and revised Appendices I and XII will be printed later for inclusion in this edition. Till such times these are printed, the rules and provisions contained in Chapter XVII and Appendices IV and XVIII in the 1951 Edition (Re-print) as amended from time to time shall continue to apply.

In State of Karnataka through CBI Vs. C. Nagarajaswamy, , it was held:

Grant of proper sanction by a competent authority is a sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence. It is desirable that the question as regard sanction may be determined at an early stage.

When a sanction is granted by a person not authorized in law, the same being without jurisdiction, would be a nullity.

In case of Surya Sankaram Karri (supra), it was held that the sanction of prosecution of a public servant was accorded by an authority, which was not an appointing authority, but power of appointment was delegated to such authority, who had granted the sanction. The order of delegation was not proved on record.

Lastly, much emphasis has been placed upon State of Goa Vs. Babu Thomas, . In para 10 of this judgment, SubSection (3) of Section 19 of the Act has been reproduced and in para 11, it has been observed as under:

Referring to the aforesaid provisions, it is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the Court should not, in appeal, reverse or alter any finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge on the ground of the absence of any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-Section (1), unless the Court finds a failure of justice has in face been occasioned thereby. In this connection, a reference was made to the decision of this Court rendered in the case of State by Police Inspector Vs. Sri T. Venkatesh Murthy, . Reference was also made to the decision of this Court in the case of Shri Durga Dass Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, where this Court has taken the view that the Court should not interfere in the finding or sentence or order passed by a special Judge and reverse or alter the same on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under subSection (1), unless the Court finds that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. According to the counsel for the appellant no failure of justice has occasioned merely because there was an error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required because evidence is yet to start and in that view the High Court has not considered this aspect of the matter and it is a fit case to intervene by this Court. We are unable to accept this contention of the counsel. The present is not the case where there has been mere irregularity, error or omission in the order of sanction as required under subSection (1) of Section 19 of the Act. It goes to the root of the prosecution case. Sub-Section (1) of Section 19 clearly prohibits that the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence punishable under sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction as stated in clauses (a), (b) and (c).

Counsel for the appellant has urged that the trial Court had drawn the points, which had arisen for determination and according to the trial Court, point No. 6 was as to whether the sanction is valid, and in answer thereto, the trial Court has observed as under:

Sanction to prosecute the appellant is Ex.PB, and it has been accorded by Additional S.E. Operation Division, PSEB, Khanna, a competent authority by applying its mind on the basis of the documents placed before him by the police. Sanction accorded by the Competent Authority is quite valid for launching against the appellant.

A perusal of the trial Court judgment reveals that no argument was raised that the sanction was invalid, as the same was not granted by the competent authority. The appellant in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in answer to a question put to him, had specifically stated as under:

Q:1 It is in evidence against you that Karamjit Singh PW was residing in vill. Bhamian and was having a electric connection in his house and you as Meter Reader of area were visiting his house to take meter readings, what have you to say?

Ans: I was temporarily assigned the duty by SDO, PSEB to go for meter readings for some days only.

It is a case of the appellant himself that he was temporarily assigned the duty of a Meter Reader by the SDO, PSEB. In this context, appointment letter Ex.P12 and the order of posting Ex.P13 assume importance. The appointment letter Ex.P12 issued on 20th January, 1988 specifically states that the appellant has been appointed as a Chowkidar. The appellant joined his services on 23rd May, 1988 as a Chowkidar. From the perusal of his service-book also, it is evident that the appellant was holding a substantive post of Chowkidar. Ex.P13 is an office order, which reads as under:

Office order No. 183 dated 05.08.1998.

Duty of the following employees are changed in the interest of the Board and orders be immediately followed:

Sr. Name of Present Proposed Special Remarks No. employee duty duty

Sh. Mukhtiar Bill Meter To do meter Singh son of Distribution Reader reading of the Sh. Nachhatar area assigned to Singh Sh. Ravinder Singh, Meter Reader

This duty is assigned till a new Meter Reader is appointed in place of Sh. Ravinder Singh.

Therefore, the appellant was drawing salary of a Chowkidar at the relevant time and he was only assigned a temporary duty of the Meter Reader till a new incumbent joined the duty. The appellant was himself aware that he was discharging a temporary duty. Therefore, it cannot be held that he was a Class-III employee and was to be removed from service by the General Manager/Engineer-in-Chief/Chief Engineer. He was in the cadre of Class-IV employees working at subordinate offices. The order of his removal could be passed by a Superintending Engineer or an Executive Engineer or any officer holding equal rank. Therefore, Additional Superintending Engineer was competent to remove the applicant from service.

Knowing fully well that this argument has no force, the same was not raised before the trial Court. For the first time, this argument has been raised before this Court in appeal. For all intents and purposes, the appellant was placed as a Chowkidar in PSEB, even though temporarily he was discharging duty of a Meter Reader. Thus, the sanction order suffers from no defect and is to be upheld.

In the present case, counsel for the appellant had advanced no argument to assail the testimonies of the witnesses to doubt the demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification. It seems that the counsel was conscious that no such argument could be advanced, as the testimonies of witnesses, who have proved these material ingredients, suffer from no blemish.

I have perused the record and read the testimonies of witnesses. The testimonies of Karamjit Singh PW-2, Zorawar Singh PW-3 and Babu Singh PW-4 aspire confidence and are trustworthy. The trial Court has rightly placed implicit reliance upon the deposition of these witnesses.

Thus, the findings of the trial Court given on various points of determination in its judgment are hereby affirmed and the present appeal, along with Criminal Misc. No. 62519 of 2009, is dismissed, being devoid of any merit.