Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Bhim Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 7 January, 2020
1 OA No-3251/2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No. 3251/2014
New Delhi, this the 07th day of January, 2020
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Ms. Aradhana Johri, Member (A)
Bhim Singh, Const. No. 2377/PCR
Age 52 ½ years
s/o Sh. Birda Ram
R/o N-2/1, II Floor, D.K. Road, Mohan Garden
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059. ... Applicant
(through Sh. K. K. Kaushik)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
(Through CP: Delhi, PHQ, MSO Building
IP Estate, New Delhi-110002.
2. The Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police (GA)
PCR, Model Town, Delhi-110009.
3. The Addl. Commissioner of Police
PCR, MSO Building, PHQ, IP Estate
New Delhi-110002 ... Respondents
(through Ms. Asiya)
ORDER(ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman The applicant was working as a Constable in Delhi Police. He was issued a summary of allegations on 07.03.2011, wherein it was stated that the applicant was found to be in possession of twenty 2 OA No-3251/2014 bottles of liquor, without any authorization or permission. An Inquiry Officer (IO) was also appointed and after recording evidence, he framed a charge. The applicant filed his statement of defence. Ultimately, the IO submitted the report holding the charge as proved. Taking the same into account, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 14.12.2012, imposing the punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service on permanent basis. Appeal preferred against that was rejected. This OA is filed challenging the order of punishment as also the order of the appellate authority.
2. The applicant contends that on the same allegations, FIR No. 141/03 was registered in PS Hari Nagar, Delhi, under Section 61(1) and Section 14 of the Excise Act and through a judgment dated 08.07.2013, the Trial Court has acquitted him of the charge. He submits that there was no basis for initiation of proceedings even while criminal case was pending and at any rate, the finding in the inquiry was totally misconceived. He further submits that the punishment imposed against him is totally disproportionate.
3. The respondents filed counter affidavit. It is stated that the parameters for deciding the criminal case on the one hand, and the disciplinary proceedings on the other, are different and accordingly, disciplinary proceedings were continued even while the criminal 3 OA No-3251/2014 case was pending. It is stated that the disciplinary inquiry was concluded much before the criminal court decided the case and that the applicant was given ample opportunity at every stage.
4. We heard Sh. K.K. Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Asiya, learned counsel for the respondents.
5. The allegation against the applicant is that he was found to be in possession of liquor bottles. In the proceedings dated 07.03.2011, the charge was appended and it reads as under:
"I, Inspr. Bishwajit Kumar charge you, Ct Bhim Singh No. 2377/PCR (PIS No. 28824178) that you were found involved in criminal case FIR No. 141/03 U/S 61-1-14 Ex. Act PS Hari Nagar. The facts are that on 9/4/03 SI Sunil Kumar No. D-3698 alongwith Ct. Devender 1480/W and Ct. Vikram No. 886/W were on patrolling and special checking duty in the area of PS Hari Nagar at about 12:30 near Subhash Nagar more, Ajay Enclave, meanwhile a secret information was received by informer that one man would come with fake scotch bottles near bus stand 588. SI framed a raiding party and on the instance of informer one man was nabbed, who was bearing one Bag and one thailla. He was interrogated and his name was disclosed as Bhim Singh S/O Birda Ram R/O 6-B Veena enclave Nangloi Delhi. When bag and thailla were checked there was found 10-10 bottles in each bag from his possession and established 1820 Johnni Walker black lable old Scotch Whisky distilled blended and bottled in Scott Land was written and he was arrested. Samples were taken and all the case property was seized through seizure memo and sealed with the seal of SKR. He also labled the bottles and case was registered U/S 61-1-14 Ex Act. During investigation Bhim Singh disclosed that he was constable in the Delhi Police.
The above act on your part amount to gross misconduct, negligence and unbecoming of a Govt. servant for which renders you liable to be dealt with 4 OA No-3251/2014 departmentally under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal Rules, 1980).
6. As provided for under the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), an inquiry was conducted. The applicant denied the charge and the IO submitted his report holding that the charge is proved, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence before him.
7. We do not find any legal infirmity in the entire proceedings. The Disciplinary Authority has also taken into account, the explanation submitted by the applicant and the IO, and ultimately, imposed the punishment.
8. Reliance is placed upon Rule 12 of the Rules and it is stated that the initiation of proceedings was totally impermissible. It is true that in case, an employee is acquitted, he cannot be imposed punishment in the disciplinary proceedings on the same allegations.
That, however, would be, when the departmental proceedings are initiated subsequent to the judgment of the Trial court in the criminal case. In this case, the departmental proceedings were initiated, even while the criminal case was pending and punishment was also imposed by the time the criminal court decided the case.
9. To be precise, the order of punishment was passed on 14.12.2012, whereas the criminal court acquitted the applicant on 5 OA No-3251/2014
08.07.2013. Therefore, Rule 12 has no application. On merits also, we are not inclined to interfere with the order.
10. One aspect, which, however becomes relevant is that once the criminal court has acquitted the applicant on the same allegations, the disciplinary authority is required to reconsider the punishment imposed against the employee. For this purpose, the applicant has to make a representation. Rules also prescribe procedure in this behalf. The disciplinary authority has to examine as to whether, the acquittal ordered against an official would enure to his benefit in the context of modification or recalling of the punishment.
11. We, therefore, dispose of the OA, leaving it open to the applicant to make representation to the disciplinary authority enclosing a copy of Judgment of the Criminal Court, order dated 08.07.2013, in which he was acquitted. On such representation, the disciplinary authority shall pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within three months thereafter.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Aradhana Johri) (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
Member (A) Chairman
/ns/