Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Head Constable Munshi Ram vs Govt. Of N.C.T.D on 9 September, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A. NO.271 of 2009 NEW DELHI, THIS THE 09TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 HONBLE SHRI N.D. DAYAL, MEMBER (A) HONBLE DR. DHARAM PAUL SHARMA, MEMBER (J) Head Constable Munshi Ram, S/o Shri Jalam Ram, Age years, R/o Village & P.O. Chandela Fatehpur, Faridabad, Haryana. ..APPLICANT (BY ADVOCATE : Shri Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Govt. of N.C.T.D., Through the Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, M.S.O. Building, New Delhi. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi District, Through the Commissioner of Police, PS Parliament Street, New Delhi. 3. The Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range, Through the Commissioner of Police, PS Parliament Street, New Delhi. .RESPONDENTS. (BY ADVOCATE : Shri Chandramani Bhardwaj for Ms. Rashmi Chopra) ORDER (ORAL) SHRI N.D. DAYAL, MEMBER (A) :
Shri Chandramani Bhardwaj, learned counsel, present on behalf of the respondents submits that regular counsel is Ms. Rashmi Chopra and that he is representing her.
2. It is ruled by the Apex Court in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & others, 2009 (1) SCALE 284 that inquiry officer has the quasi judicial functions, which apart from passing the administrative orders is also determining the right of a person and acting in consonance with law. Accordingly, the inquiry officer is designated as such. The purpose behind this is that whatever rules for inquiry are laid down are mandatory to be followed, failing which the role of quasi judicial authority would not be apt, as described and held by the Apex Court.
3. In this view of the matter, applicant, who is a Constable impugns respondents order dated 20.8.2008 imposing post-inquiry a major penalty upon him and also an order passed by the appellate authority dated 4.12.2008 upholding the punishment. Applicant, who has been proceeded against along with Constable Dalbir Singh and Constable Mukesh, has been held guilty with the following orders:
The delinquent constable submitted his defence statement in which he has stated that he was staying in barrack Ashoka Police Lines. About 20/25 days before the incident, he had helped to complete the mess record of HC Satvir Singh Mess I/C. HC Munshi Ram No.21/ND who was to take charge of Mess got annoyed that why he helped HC Satbir Singh in completing his record. On 17-5-07, when he went to Ashoka Police Line for taking his dinner, HC Munshi Ram 21/ND and Ct. Mukesh Kumar No.585/ND beaten him is presence of HC Satbir Singh No.865/ND and many others. To save himself, HC Munshi Ram informed the PCR and Ct. Mukesh Kumar ran away from there.
Conclusion The main allegation against HC Munshi Ram No.21/ND and Const. Dalvir Singh 1368/ND is that there was altercation/quarrel and scuffle between HC Munshi Ram No.21ND and Ct.Dalvir Singh No.1368/ND Const. Mukesh Kumar No.585/ND was also a party of it who had taken side of HC Munshi Ram No.21/ND and fled away from the spot.
After careful study of documents placed on DE file, statements of PWs & DWs, the charge framed against HC Munshi Ram No.21/ND and Ct.Dalvir Singh No.1368/ND stands proved.
4. The same when agreed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority gives rise to the present OA.
5. As we have referred to above the judgment of Apex Court as to quasi judicial functions to be performed by the inquiry officer, this decision has further been reiterated by the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, 2010 (2) SCC 772 where it has been ruled that on mere suspicion and surmises, one cannot be held guilty of the charge.
6. In the light of above, Rule 16 (ix) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, which is substantive in nature and is to be followed, entrusts the inquiry officer with an obligation to not only consider the defence statement or evidence produced by the delinquent official but also to record reasons on each article of charges.
7. In the light of above, the ground raised by the applicants counsel is that the inquiry report has prejudiced him being indefinite against Rule 16 (ix) of the Rules where neither applicants written statement was considered nor has any reasoning been recorded.
8. This has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for respondents, who states that the evidence, which had come forth in the inquiry, establishes the charge against the applicant on the ground that he was under the influence of liquor and also making quarrel with fellow Head Constable. It is also stated that this Court is precluded from re-appreciating the evidence or substituting its views to interpret in any manner the inquiry proceedings where the disciplinary as well as appellate authorities recorded reasoned orders.
9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the records.
10. On first blush and ex facie the inquiry report does not show consideration of the defence produced by the applicant and the contentions raised. The inquiry officer in his conclusion has not whispered about this what to talk of recorded reasons as to how the charge against the applicant has been proved. As this is not in consonance with Rule 16 (ix) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 and being a quasi-judicial authority having failed to render the responsibility, the inquiry report cannot be sustained in law as also the consequent orders.
11. Resultantly, OA is allowed to the extent that impugned orders are quashed. Applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, as admissible in law. However, if so advised, respondents are at liberty to take up the proceedings from the stage of recording evidence as per Rule 16 (ix) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. In such an event, law shall take its own course. No costs.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) (N.D. DAYAL)
MEMBER (J) MEMBER (A)
/ravi/