Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Head Constable Rajbir Singh vs The Commissioner Of Police on 15 February, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.2138/2010 New Delhi, this the 15th day of February, 2011 Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (J) Honble Dr. K. B. Suresh, Member (A) Head Constable Rajbir Singh S/o Shri Chander Ram, R/o Friends Colony, Bahadur Garh, Haryana. . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri Sachin Chauhan) Versus 1. The Commissioner of Police Police Headquarters, I. P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Special Commissioner of Police, Armed Police, Through the Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I. P. Estate, M.S.O. Building, New Delhi. 3. Dy. Commissioner of Police 1st Bn. DAP, Delhi, Through the Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I. P. Estate, M.S.O. Building, New Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Sumedha Sharma) : O R D E R : Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) :
Head Constable Rajbir Singh, the Applicant herein, has assailed; (i) the order dated 2.01.2009 (Annexure-A1) in which a Departmental Enquiry (DE) was ordered; (ii) the order dated 18.03.2010 (Annexure-A2) issued by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of Censure and treating the period of suspension from 6.12.2008 to 15.03.2009 as the period spent on duty; (iii) the order dated 7.06.2010 (Annexure-A3) in which the Applicants appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority and (iv) the letter dated 27.01.2010 (Annexure-A4) in which the Applicant was communicated the findings of the Enquiry Officer (EO) in which the charge framed against the Applicant was held as partly proved. Impugning those 4 orders, the Applicant has moved this Tribunal in the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking those orders to be quashed and set aside and to grant him consequential benefits including seniority, promotion and pay and allowances.
2. The facts of the case in brief would transpire that on 6.12.2008 when the ACP, CPR checked the staff posted at CPR Vijay Ghat for QRT duties at NDCR, the Applicant was found absent which was marked vide DD Entry No.25 dated 6.12.2008 at CPR, Vijay Ghat. As per the duty register he was detailed to take up his duty from 2.00 pm to 8.00 pm on that day. At about 1.20 pm, he came to the office of the Duty Officer where he was told to make his arrival entry from his absence, but he became angry and told the Duty Officer that he would not make his arrival entry as the duty assigned to him with AK 47 Weapon which he would not be able to handle as it was sophisticated weapon and he did not have training in the same. In this regard, a DD No.45 dated 6.12.2008 was lodged by Duty Officer at CPR, Vijay Ghat. Subsequently, the Applicant reached the Office of Inspector, CPR and repeated the same in an indecent manner. The Inspector Suresh Chandra tried to convince him but the Applicant left the room abruptly saying that he would appear before the DCP, 1st Bn. DAP. He was told by the Inspector Suresh Chandra to appear before the DCP on the next day after performing his duty as there was acute shortage of staff. But the Applicant did not obey the instructions of Inspector Suresh Chandra. It is also alleged that he did not try to learn how to handle the AK-47 sophisticated weapon in daily routine training which was imparted to all the Jawans at CPR/Vijay Ghat. For the said alleged misconduct, the Applicant was placed under suspension w.e.f. 6.12.2008 and was reinstated on 16.03.2009. The Departmental Enquiry so instituted was enquired into by Inspector (Pushkal Sharma) who enquired the prosecution witnesses and thereafter the charge was served on the Applicant to which the Applicant responded and the EO after completing the enquiry held the charge as partly proved as the misbehavior and misconduct is proved and about the charge for not getting trained AK-47 in sophisticated weapons was held as not proved. Provisionally agreeing with the findings of the EO, the report was served on the Applicant vide letter dated 27.01.2010 to which he submitted the representation on 9.02.2010. After considering the plea taken by the Applicant in his defence during the deposition before the Enquiry Officer and the representation before the Disciplinary Authority for the charge held as partly proved, the penalty of Censure was imposed on him. Being aggrieved, he filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority who after consideration of the same has rejected, as a result of which, challenging all these orders, the Applicant is before this Tribunal in the present OA.
3. Shri Sachin Chauhan, learned Counsel for the Applicant very laboriously tried to project that the Applicant attempted to explain to the concerned authorities that he did not know handling of the AK 47 which is a sophisticated weapon. Therefore, the duty assigned to him along with the AK-47 could not have been satisfactorily performed. His contention is that the Applicant put forward these aspects to the Duty Officer and subsequently to the Inspector. By not accepting the Applicants version, the superior authorities have taken departmental action against him by placing him under suspension and subsequently imposing the punishment of Censure.
4. His another contention is that the report of the Enquiry Officer is bad in law as the said report violated Rule 16 (9) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, as the EO failed to record subsequent findings supported by the evidence which have come on record during the DE in respect of each of the charges. The EO did not consider the evidence which have been adduced in defence of the Applicant. Further, he contended that the charge did not specify what is insubordination and misbehavior which the Applicant committed which could be construed as misconduct. The entire Enquiry officers report and proceedings would show that there was no evidence against the Applicant to show that he himself misbehaved with his superior officers. It is the case of the Applicant that as he was not well trained for handling AK 47 he could not have done his duty perfectly with AK 47 and, therefore, the facts brought to the notice of the senior officers, the Applicant could not have been found fault with. In this regard, he referred to the DD Entry made by the Applicant. He also drew our attention to the fact that the Applicant after completing his training for 3 days reported back at CPR Kalyan Puri on 24.04.2009 and, therefore, to say that the Applicant could have handle AK 47 prior to 21.04.2009 was rather far from truth. He also submitted that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are non speaking and non reasoned order and both the orders reveal that there was non application of mind by the concerned authorities. His contention is that the conduct of the Applicant was not such that it could have been construed as a misbehaviour or misconduct and Shri Chauhan placed his reliance on the judgments of Honble Apex Court in case of Reserve Bank of India Versus C. L. Tora [2004 (4) SCC 657] and in the case of Ram Kishan Versus Union of India [1995 (6) SCC 157]. In these circumstances, Shri Sachin Chauhan submits that the OA should be allowed and the impugned orders should be quashed and set aside.
5. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 12.07.2010 and on receipt of the same on 19.08.2010 the Respondents have submitted their reply affidavit by controverting the grounds taken by the Applicant in the OA. Ms. Sumedha Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submits that the EO conducted the enquiry as per law. There was no violation of Rule 16 of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. The EO, she submits, has clearly held the misbehavior and misconduct of the Applicant as proved and only for the said proved misconduct the penalty of Censure has been imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority. She also submits that the judgments of Honble Supreme Court relied upon by the Counsel for the Applicant are distinguishable as the facts and circumstances in those cases are far different from the present OA. She further highlights that the EO has followed the principles of natural justice, considered the evidence which have been adduced during the enquiry and held one charge of misbehavior as proved and did not held the non handling of AK 47 and, therefore, for the partly proved charge, proportionate punishment of Censure has been imposed on the Applicant. She hastens to add that even the suspension period has been treated as duty. She, therefore, submits that the OA is a fit case to be dismissed.
6. Having heard the above contentions of the rival parties, with their assistance we have perused the pleadings. On our direction, the Respondents have placed the DE File of the Applicant for our perusal which we very closely went though.
7. On the basis of allegations levelled in the Departmental Enquiry ordered by the competent authority the following charge was framed against the Applicant :-
The charge framed was that while posted in day CPR Vijay Ghat for QRT duties at NDCR on 6.12.2008 the staff was checked by ACP/CPR and HC Rajbir Singh, 2232/W was found absent, consequently he was marked absent vide DD No.25 dated 6.12.2008 at CPR V. Ghat. As per duty register he was detailed to perform duty from 2 PM to 8 PM. At about 1.20 PM he came in the office of duty officer and he was told to make his arrival entry from his absence, but he became angry and told to do duty officer that he will not make his arrival entry as he has been detailed for duty with AK 47 rifle (Sophisticated Weapon) while he cannot handle such weapon. In this regard, a DD No.45 dated 6.12.2008 was lodged by DO CPR Vijay Ghat. After that he reached in the Office of Insp. CPR on duty Shri Suresh Chandra and he repeated the asme in a very indecent manner. Inspector Suresh Chandra also tried to convince him but he went out from the Office of Inspector saying that he will appear before DCP /1st Bn. DAP. Inspector also told him to appear before worthy DCP/1st BN. DAP on the next day after performing his duty as there was acute shortage of staff and not single staff was excess but he did not obeyed the instructions of Inspector Suresh Chandra. He also did not tried to learn to handle the sophisticated weapon in daily routine training, which was being given by DCI to all the Jawans at CPR V/Ghat.
For the above said misconduct HC Rajbir Singh, No.2232/W (now) 4109/DaP was also placed under suspension with effect from 6.12.2008 vide this office order no.8812-40/HAP/1st BN. DAP dated 16.12.2008.
The above act on the part of HC Rajbir Singh, No.2232/W, (now) 4109/DAP amounts to grave misconduct, negligent act, Indiscipline, dereliction in the discharge of his official duties and unbecoming of a Police Officer, which render him liable for departmental action under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.
8. The above charge was farmed after examination of 5 prosecution witnesses. On receipt of the representation denying the charges framed against the Applicant, the Enquiry officer examined two more witnesses and also perused the documents and came to the following conclusion:-
CONCLUSION:-
After going through the entire record placed on the file, i.e., statement of PWs, Documents supported by their statements, Defence statement submitted by the delinquent and its supporting documents, Depositions given by the Court witnesses and court document and the relevr4ant facts, it is hereby concluded that the charges levelled against the delinquent that is HC Rajbir Singh No.4109/DAP stands partially proved as the misbehavior and misconduct is proved in the statements of the PWs i.e. PW-1 and PW4. Regarding training given to the HC Rajbir Singh No.4109/DAP is not proved.
9. The Disciplinary Authority served the Enquiry Officers report on the Applicant who represented against the same. The Applicant has taken the main plea that the deposition made by PW-1 and PW-4 have not stated anything regarding his misbehavior but the EO has taken his own the conclusions against him. The Disciplinary Authority has accorded him personal hearing on 9.03.2010 and having gone through the entire gamut of evidence and documents available on record of DE file and agreeing with the findings of the EO held the part of the charge as proved and not being fully satisfied with the oral and written submissions made by the Applicant but taking into account the assurance given by the Applicant before him that such mistakes would not be repeated in future, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a minor punishment of Censure on the Applicant and treated the suspension period as the period spent on duty. We take notice of the fact that during personal hearing the Applicant has admitted the misbehaviour part of the charge and given assurance of good conduct in future. We find that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is a speaking and well reasoned order.
10. The Applicant has taken more or less same plea before the Appellate Authority which was considered by him and rejected the appeal. On a close and careful perusal of the Appellate Authoritys order, we find it to be a speaking and reasoned order, where the pleas raised by the Applicant have been considered.
11. The evidence adduced before the Enquiry officer clearly reveals that the Applicant has misbehaved with and disobeyed his senior officers. Police Force in general is a disciplined force where indiscipline and disobedience should not take place. If takes place, such incidents must not be tolerated. Particularly, the Code of Conduct for the Delhi Police Personnel prescribes that the Police should always be courteous and well mannered and it also envisages that The Police should recognize that they can enhance their utility to the administration and country only by maintaining high standard of discipline, unstinted obedience to their superiors and loyalty to the force and by keeping themselves in a state of constant training and preparedness. In a large force like Delhi Police, three fundamental qualities of Police are duty, discipline and obedience, lack of one of these would attract the allegation of misconduct.
12. The Respondent competent authorities are right in their action to curb any visible indiscipline and disobedience attitude shown by the subordinates. This is a case where the competent authorities have taken timely action against the disobedience, indiscipline and misbehavior shown by the Applicant and have expeditiously dealt the same. Had such indiscipline not been dealt properly, the delinquent Applicant would otherwise have been emboldened to continue similar incident in future. Such indiscipline and disobedience by the subordinate police would not go well with the maintenance of discipline in the entire Delhi Police force. This is our observation just to keep on record that this Tribunal would not interfere in the matters where the proper procedure has been followed by the Enquiry officer, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority and when the indiscipline and misbehavior has been found to be there the Tribunal would not like to interfere in the punishment which is found to be proportionate.
13. Taking into account the averments made in the OA and the contentions raised by the Applicants Counsel, we find that the EO has taken the evidence to his consideration and held one part of the charge as proved. Misbehaviour part alone has been substantiated by EO. Thus, we do not find any violation of Rule 16 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. On the basis of the EOs report, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the penalty of Censure. The punishment is proportionate to the proved misconduct.
14. The case laws referred to by the Counsel for the Applicant are well distinguishable as the facts and circumstances in those case are far different from the present OA and, therefore, we are not proposing to discuss the law and ratio led in those judgments as those would not be applicable in this case.
15. Having given careful consideration and thought to the facts and circumstances of the case, and having gone through the averments and the contentions raised by the Counsel for the Applicant, we come to the considered conclusion that the Applicant has not made out a case calling for our intervention in the matter. The OA, therefore, fails. In the result, we dismiss the OA as devoid of merits. We do not order on costs.
(Dr. K. B. Suresh) (Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda)
Member (J) Member (A)
/pj/