Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Satish Kumar-Ii vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 30 August, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 4335/2010 NEW DELHI THIS THE 30th DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. KHUSHI RAM, MEMBER (A) Satish Kumar-II, SI (Min.) in Delhi Police, S/o Sh. Vishan Pal, PIS No. 27770013 R/o House No 22, Street No. 3, Chander Nagar (West), Delhi-51. Applicant. (By Advocate Shri Anil Singal) Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi through 1. Commissioner of Police Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Joint Commissioner of Police, (Southern Range), PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. D.C.P (South-West Distt.), Sector-19, Dwarka, New Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocate Ms. Alka Sharma) ORDER
Mr. G. George Paracken:
The applicants grievance is against the Annexure A-1 Show Cause Notice dated 15.10.2009 proposing to impose the punishment of Censure and the Annexure A-2 order dated 16.02.2010 confirming the same. He is also aggrieved by the Annexure A-3 order of the appellate authority dated 05.07.2010 rejecting his appeal against the aforesaid order.
2. According to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice, the Dy. Commissioner of Police, West Distt Delhi has forwarded a complaint of one Shri Nathu Ram with its enclosures received from NHRC on 29.12.2008 to ACP/PG/SWD for enquiry and report by 19.01.2009. The ACP submitted the report that a Vigilance Enquiry was already conducted in this regard in 2004 itself and a report be sent to NHRC on the basis of that report. On 06.03.2009, the applicant stated that the file in question was sent earlier to S.O. to Addl. DCP-I/SWD, vide letter No. 3718/SWD (C-1) dated 15.06.2004 but when the same was asked from him, it was found not traceable. He has further proposed that the ACP may conduct a fresh inquiry into the matter so that a suitable reply could be sent to NHRC. The allegation against the applicant was that when the NHRC reference was received on 29.12.2008, he has put up it to DCP/SWD only on 13.03.2009 whereas the reply to NHRC was required to be submitted on 19.01.2009. Further, he did not submit his reply to the explanation called from him in this regard on 21.03.2009 despite four reminders. The above act on the part of the applicant was considered as gross negligence, carelessness and dereliction in the discharge of his official duties.
3. The applicant has submitted the Annexure A-4 reply dated 13.01.2010 to the aforesaid show cause notice stating that the NHRC reference which was a complaint of one Shri Nathu Ram was received in the Complaint Branch on 30.12.2008 and it was put up on the same next day itself i.e. 31.12.2008 and the complaint in original was sent to to the ACP for inquiry and report by 07.01.2009. The report was received from the ACP only on 19.01.2009 with the observation that an inquiry into the matter has already been conducted by the Vigilance/SWD in 2004. On checking the records of the complaint branch, it revealed that the enquiry report had already been sent to DCP/Vig. He has further stated that the reference pertains to the year 2004 when he was not posted in the District and as such a report was given on the basis of available record. Since the reference was not traceable, it was suggested that a fresh inquiry be got conducted to dispose of the NHRC reference. During the period, as desired by the senior officers, the record of Vigilance Branch/PHQ was also checked but without fruitful result. Thereafter, the NHRC office was contacted to find out the outcome of previous reference but without any success. Accordingly, as per directions of the ACP/SWD, a fresh inquiry was got conducted and report was sent to Joint CP/SR under the signature of Addl. DCP-I/SWD on 26.03.2009. He has further explained that there was no concealment of facts and the report was submitted on the basis of available records. The suggestion made to hold a fresh inquiry to dispose of the reference was accepted and accordingly a fresh inquiry was got conducted to dispose of the reference. As regards the allegation of delay in the Show Cause Notice, he has submitted that the reference in question was received on 30.12.2008 and was sent to ACP/PG Cell/SWD for inquiry and report on the very next day i.e. 31.12.2008 without any delay. He has, therefore, requested not to take any adverse action against him on the show cause notice for censure as there was no mala fide intention on his part.
4. The disciplinary authority, vide its Annexure A-2 order dated 16.02.2010, held that the applicant did not follow up even the NHRC reference which reflects poorly on his work. Being in-Charge of Section, he should have ensured that such references were followed up or at least put up to senior officers in time. Therefore, his written and oral submissions were not found satisfactorily and the proposed punishment of Censure was confirmed.
5. The applicant made the Annexure A-5 representation dated 18.03.2010 to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Southern Range, Delhi against the aforesaid punishment order. In the said representation, he has repeated the facts stated by him in reply to the Show Cause Notice and denied that there was any delay on his part. He has also stated that the Show Cause Notice was issued and confirmed with a biased mind and attitude as neither the Dealing Assistant nor the PG Cell Staff who took time to reply the NHRC reference was issued even with the explanation and the applicant being the in-Charge who was supervising the branch alone has been singled out for the reasons best known to the disciplinary authority. He has again reiterated that as far as the Branch was concerned, there was no concealment of facts and delay.
6. The appellate authority observed in its Annexure A-3 order dated 05.07.2010 that the working of the branch cannot be treated as complete only in calling the report from any officer. In the instant case, the complaint was received from NHRC on 24.12.2008 and the reply to NHRC was required to be submitted on 19.01.2009 but the same was put up before the DCP only on 13.03.2009 and the applicant was found responsible for not submitting the reply in time to the concerned Branch. Therefore, he was found negligent for which the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is not excessive and, therefore, the same is to be maintained.
7. The applicant has challenged the aforesaid impugned Show Cause Notice and orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority in this Original Application. His contention is that the facts in the case reveal that there was no delay in submission of the reference and calling a report from the ACP/PG Cell. He has also submitted that he has been singled out for imposing the punishment as neither the Dealing Assistant nor the PG Cell staff have been issued with any similar show cause notices. Further, the punishment was not based on any proved facts and in such circumstances a proper and detailed inquiry should have been conducted in the matter.
8. In the reply filed by the respondents, they have maintained the same facts and reasons as stated by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority in their respective orders.
9. We have heard Shri Anil Singal, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Alka Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. The facts in this case are not disputed. The applicant who was the Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) was in-Charge of the Complaint Branch, South-West District. The reference received from the NHRC by the DCP/WD on 24.12.2008 was forwarded to ACP/PG/SWD on 30.12.2008 for enquiry and report by 19.01.2009 but the applicant has put up the reply to DCP/SWD only on 13.03.2009. Hence, there was delay. The DCP/SWD sought an explanation for the said delay from the Applicant on 21.03.2009 but he did not give any reply to the same despite reminders to him. As a result, the DCP/SWD issued show cuse notice dated 15.10.2009 to the Applicant. He explained that there was absolutely no delay on his part to deal with the NHRC reference. He stated that when the reference was received in the Complaint Branch on 30.12.2008, it was sent to the ACP/PG Cell/SWD for inquiry and report on the very next day without any delay. The ACP/PG Cell submitted a report on 19.01.2009 with observation that the inquiry into the matter has already been conducted by the Vigilance/SWD in 2004. On checking the record of the complaint branch, the applicant found that the inquiry report had already been sent to the DCP Vigilance and the movement of the register was showing that the file was with SO to Addl. DCP-I/SWD. Since the reference was not traceable, the applicant has submitted that a fresh enquiry be made in the matter to dispose of the NHRC reference and accordingly, with the direction of the disciplinary authority, a fresh inquiry was got conducted and a report was sent to Joint CP/SR under the signature of Addl. DCP-I/SWD on 26.03.2009. It is seen from the record that the disciplinary authority did not consider the aforesaid explanation given by the applicant as satisfactory. The appellate authority also did not consider the various events between the receipt of the NHRC reference in the Complaint Branch on 30.12.2008 and 13.03.2009 i.e. the date on which the Applicant put up the reply. We need not go into the question as to why the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority were not satisfied with the above explanation of the applicant. However, the question remains to be answered is as to why the applicant did not give the explanation given as reply to the show cause notice dated 15.10.2009 when he was asked vide the DCP/SWDs letter dated 21.03.2009 followed by four reminders. The act on the part of the Applicant was considered as gross negligence, carelessness and dereliction of duty in discharge of his official duties is his failure to give explanation when called for from him vide letter dated 21.03.2009, despite four reminders.
10. The Annexure A-4 reply of the Applicant to the show cause notice does not contain a whisper about the explanation sought from by letter dated 21.03.2009 or the four reminders sent to him after that letter. His explanation was all about the actions taken by him from 30.12.2008 to 13.03.2009 on the NHRC reference received through the DCP/SWD and his defence that there was no delay on his part. The disciplinary authority has also misdirected itself inasmuch as it did not consider the fact that the Applicant has not given any reply to the explanation called for from him on 21.03.2009 followed by four reminders. On the contrary, the punishment of Censure confirmed by the disciplinary authority vide impugned order dated 16.02.2010, was for the reason that he did not ensure that the NHRC reference was not followed up and put up the matter to several officers in time. The appellate authority also in a routine and mechanical manner rejected the appeal of the applicant without even mentioning anything about the allegation against him that he did not respond to the explanation called for from him on 21.03.2009 and the four reminders issued to him thereafter. In our considered view, both the aforesaid orders have been issued without proper application of mind.
11. In view of the above position, we allow this OA and quash and set aside the impugned Annexure A-1 Show Cause Notice dated 15.10.2009 proposing the punishment of Censure, the Annexure A-2 order imposing the punishment of Censure and the Annexure A-3 order rejecting the appeal of the applicant. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Khushi Ram ) ( G. George Paracken ) Member (A) Member (J) SRD