Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Hc Jaipal Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 31 October, 2008
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 1606/2005 New Delhi this the 31st day of October, 2008 Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J) Honble Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member (A) HC Jaipal Singh, PIS No. 28740747 R/o 269/2, Arya Mohalla, Nangloi, New Delhi-41. .. Applicant. (By Advocate Shri Anil Singal) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Joint Commissioner of Police Traffic, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Traffic (SR), Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocate Shri Ajesh Luthra proxy for Shri Harvir Singh) O R D E R
Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice-Chairman (J) The applicant, Reader to ACP/T-West, Delhi Police, had been placed under suspension from 26.07.2001 to 06.09.2002. A domestic inquiry had thereafter been arranged to be held on the basis of summary of allegations (Annexure A-1). Ultimately, the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer was that the charge against the defaulter had been substantiated. The Deputy Commissioner of Police by Annexure A-3 dated 24.11.2003 had imposed a penalty of forfeiture of three years approved service of the applicant permanently. The appellate authority had held that for the misconduct of the applicant, punishment of forfeiture of one year approved service would suffice and had, therefore, reduced the punishment awarded to that extent by his order dated 04.03.2005. These orders are under challenge.
2. The summary of allegations indicate that there was mismanagement in the office of ACT/T-West District in dealing with the cases of vehicles being impounded by various Traffic circles of the West District and this resulted in violation of Supreme Court orders/directions. It had been alleged that on checking of records in the custody of Reader to ACP/T-West, it came out that a large number of cases/documents were lying un attended pending decision. The documents tied up in the shape of bundles, were, therefore, scrutinized. In a large number of cases, the documents pertaining to the offending vehicles were missing. This fact had been noted at the time of inspection of 17.04.2001. Duly a report had been forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), on 27.06.2001 along with a list of 1439 cases appended, where there were discrepancies noticed. During enquiry, it had been revealed that Notice register from 01.11.2000 to 31.12.2000 and from January, 2001 to March, 2001 were not located. Suspension order register was also not there. Final orders passed in January, 2001 had not been served on the vehicle owners. Generally it was found that records were not properly being maintained during the period when the applicant was in charge of the job. An opinion is seen to have, therefore, been formed that his conduct amounted to gross misconduct, negligence and dereliction in the discharge of the official duty.
3. In the departmental inquiry, seven witnesses had been examined by the prosecution side. An equal number of the defence witnesses also had been examined. Taking notice of the report that had forth come, penalty had been advised but appreciating the mitigating circumstance, that most of the orders issued were at the instance of two constables working under him, which showed that they were handling the work of suspension of permits, the appellate authority had reduced the quantum of penalty. Nevertheless, it had been recorded that the applicant was expected to monitor the working of the staff under his supervision, he being the Reader, and this circumstance could be considered as mismanagement in the office.
4. Mr. Anil Singal appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that it was a case where a harsh penalty has been imposed on the applicant without adequate justification. He has arrayed his arguments under four major heads. It is submitted that the inquiry was held in violation of the rules and principles of natural justice, since in spite of request made, documents which have been requested for were not made available. As a matter of fact, when a negative attitude had been adopted by the inquiry officer, he had complained to the disciplinary authority, and as a consequence, the inquiry officer was changed. Although a few documents thereafter had been made available to him, there was no explanation forthcoming as to why the rest of the documents were not being shown or not made available. Counsel had invited our attention to certain decided cases viz., State of M.P. Vs. Chintaman (AIR 1961 SC 1623), Tirlok Nath Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1967 SLR 759) and Gadadhar Rambin Vs. Food Corporation of India and Ors. (1989 (4) SLR 724 (Cal), to highlight that there was no discretion on the part of the respondents to withhold documents, and it would not have been possible for them, to decide themselves as to whether a document called for was relevant or irrelevant. Therefore, the withholding of documents was an error which corrupted the enquiry.
5. However, we cannot find presence of absolute rule, as highlighted by the learned counsel, since the matter, is in the realms of principles of natural justice, so as to ensure that a person is given adequate opportunity, to defend himself. Although no formal decision had been communicated to the applicant as to why some of the documents were withheld, we are bound to take note that the argument as forthcoming from the learned counsel for the applicant arise of belated wisdom. The stand of respondent is that the plea as raised could not have been entertained at this stage since the applicant had participated in the inquiry, and effectively cross examined the witnesses concerned, and if had he any real grievance, it should have been taken up with the appropriate authorities, before participating the inquiry and not later. We are not also told of any prejudice as suffered by the applicant in the present case, by not getting documents which, according to him, were required for his defence.
6. The second aspect highlighted by the learned counsel was the conduct of the inquiry officer whereby summons had not been issued to the Government officers, who, according to applicant were required to be examined as defence witnesses. He had referred to a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Deoki Nandan Kulshreshtha Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (1986 (4) SLR 734), as also the decision of the Tribunal in OA 1634/2004 dated 06.01.2005 and OA 646/1998 of the Principal Bench rendered on 14.03.2001. He submitted that it was a duty cast on the respondents to ensure that witnesses were summoned whose presence, according to the delinquent, was necessary to successfully defend his case. Our attention was also invited to a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Mumtaj Hussain Ansari Vs. State of UP & Anr. (1984 (3) SCC 295).
7. But, however, we are inclined to accept the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, that it was not a mandatory duty on the part of the inquiry officer to issue summons to witnesses cited by the delinquent, nor was it his duty to ensure their presence. Under Rule 16 (5) of the Delhi Police (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, specific provision has been made where under, it is conclusively laid down that names of the witnesses are to be given, and the purpose of examining such witnesses with reference to the facts, they intend to disclose, are also to be given before hand. The witnesses have to be produced by the delinquent himself at his own expense. Although, observations have been made by a Bench of the Tribunal in OA 646/1998, pointing out that the Rule may not be consistent with the principle of fair play and natural justice, we are of the view that so long as the rules are in the statute book, it may not be possible for the applicant to characterize the proceedings as vitiated. Especially we find that the applicant had not disclosed the reasons the presence of such witnesses was required, as per the mandate of the rule. It is also settled law that rule making authority can prescribe procedure, whereby rights as might be available under natural justice could be curbed.
8. Counsel had thereafter submitted that in any case an incompetent authority had issued the penalty advice. He had invited our attention to Annexure A-13, which was the office order for work distribution issued by the Joint Commissioner of Police. It is highlighted that DCP/Traffic Headquarters was designated as the person who was in overall administration and discipline of traffic personnel, and the DCP Traffic (NR) was given responsibility only for proper traffic arrangement and control of Northern Range. The argument was that when DCP Traffic had issued the penalty advice, this operated against the above proceedings. But we do not find the argument has having substance, especially taking notice of the circumstances that under Section 21 of the Delhi Police Act, a Deputy Commissioner of Police, is empowered to prescribe a penalty in respect of persons of the status of the applicant.
9. The last submission was about the severity of penalty, and also a circumstance that the applicant has been found guilty of a lapse not found in the chargesheet. We have to notice that the approach of the appellate authority was unexceptionable. The witnesses, who were examined on behalf of the applicant, had in categorical terms deposed that the work in the office was being conducted in a most unsatisfactory manner. Witnesses had stated that the persons who were supposed to be working subordinate to the applicant had been entering into dealings with the general public. This single circumstance, according to us, are sufficient for the authority to come to a conclusion that in the matter of management and supervision of the office, the applicant was not acting in an effective manner and was giving his subordinates, opportunity to make bargain and make money. Sufficient evidence had also been adduced to show that records to be mandatorily maintained were not there, during the period when the applicant was admittedly in charge of the work ( and perhaps even before). We are not in a position to accept the submission made by Mr. Singal that the appellate authority had come up with a finding which was not in the memorandum of allegations served to him, and the findings were different from the charges.
10. In matters of discipline, when we find that adequate opportunity is given to the delinquent employee and especially when it is not a case of victimization/ mala fides, the orders of the disciplinary authority are not to be lightly shaken. The respondents have not been vindictive, opportunities had been given to the applicant to explain his stand and the penalty imposed also does not appear to be on the higher side. Resultantly, the O.A. is dismissed. No costs.
(N.D. DAYAL) (M. RAMACHANDRAN) MEMBER (A) VICE CHAIRMAN (J) `SRD