Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Madan Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 21 May, 2025
Item No. 52/C-2 1 OA No.1207/2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 3274/2019
Reserved on: 09.05.2025.
Pronounced on: 21.05.2025.
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Madan Singh, Age-53 years,
Asstt. Sub-Inspector (Exe),
Sub: Major Punishment, Group-C
S/o Sh. Krishan Kumar,
R/o-B-312, Gali No-25, Ashok Kumar, Shahdara, Delhi
... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCTD through
The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
A-Wing, 5th Floor, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi-110113
2. The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, MSO Building,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi
3. The Joint Commissioner of Police,
Eastern Range, Delhi through the
The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, MSO Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi
4. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
North-East District through
The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, MSO Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocate:Mr. S. N. Verma)
Item No. 52/C-2 2 OA No.1207/2022
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
By way of the present O.A. filed u/s 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985, the applicant, in para 8 of the O.A., has prayed for the following reliefs: -
"8.1 To quash and set aside the order dated 19.8.2017 the order of disciplinary authority whereby the major punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service permanently is being imposed upon the applicant and order dated 14.5.2019 whereby the appeal of the applicant is rejected by the Appellate Authority and to further direct the respondents that forfeited service be restored as it was never forfeited with all consequential benefits including seniority & promotion and pay & allowances.
8.2 To quash and set-aside the order dated 16.5.2016 whereby the D.E. is being initiated against the applicant.
8.3 To quash and set-aside the finding of Enquiry Officer 15.6.2017 Or/and
(i) Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The applicant was appointed as Constable under the respondents, i.e., Delhi Police in the year 1998 and thereafter, Item No. 52/C-2 3 OA No.1207/2022 promoted to the rank of Head Constable and finally, to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector.
2.1 Departmental Inquiry (DE) was conducted against the applicant. The Inquiry Officer submitted report dated 15.6.2017 proving the charge against the applicant. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 19.08.2017 whereby major punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service permanently was imposed upon the applicant. It was also decided that the period of suspension from 15.03.2016 to 22.03.2016 not to be treated as spent on duty.
2.2 The applicant made an appeal dated 15.09.2017 (Annexure-A/5) and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 14.05.2019 (Annexure-A/4) rejected his aforesaid appeal. Applicant contends that the order of the appellate authority is absolutely a non-speaking and mechanical order thus causing great prejudice to the applicant. Hence, the present Original Application seeking the reliefs as quoted above.
Item No. 52/C-2 4 OA No.1207/2022 SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPLICANT
3. Applicant submitted that the order dated 16.05.2016 vide which the DE was being initiated against him, the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 19.08.2017 whereby the major punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service permanently is being imposed upon the applicant and the order dated 14.05.2019 whereby the appeal of the applicant is rejected by the Appellate Authority has caused great prejudice to the applicant. He further stated that the findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 15.06.2017 are illegal, arbitrary, malafide, unjustified, unreasonable without jurisdiction and the same are in violation of principles of natural justice and laid down departmental rules. He stated that the present case is a case of 'no evidence' as per deposition of the complainant Smt.Shashi, PW-3. He places reliance on the deposition of PW-3, as discussed by the Inquiry Officer stating that: -
"She deposed that she is residing at the abovementioned address. On 15/16 March 2016 her daughter Shivani didn't reach at home, on which she called at 100 and reached PS Jafrabad, where ASI Madan Singh wrote her complaint and provide her copy of FIR. On the very next day call of Shivani Item No. 52/C-2 5 OA No.1207/2022 came on the mobile of Saloni i.e. friend of Smt. Shashi, but she could not talk. Saloni provided mobile numbers to Smt. Shashi where from call came. She went to the police station Jafrabad with mobile numbers, where IO ASI Madan Singh was not present. When she reached before police station brother-in-law of kidnapper, his mother and his sister beat her. Other Police personnel were also present there except ASI Madan Singh. After that she was taken to Jag Parvesh Hospital for medical and action was taken against culprits. Thereafter, I met SHO of Police Station Jafrabad, who scolded ASI Madan Singh and get signature on documents. After 15 days her daughter returned. She denied for any complaint against ASI Madan Singh and stated that she does not want any action against ASI Madan Singh as he is not at fault in the present matter."
3.1. Learned counsel contended that perusal of deposition makes it clear that the applicant was not present at the time of alleged incident and furthermore, she clearly stated that she has no complaint against the applicant and she has no grievance in respect of conduct of the applicant and furthermore, it is stated that the applicant helped her to great extent in the present case. The entire set of allegations levelled against the applicant was on the complaint of Smt.Shashi. Once Smt. Shashi has come in D.E. and has deposed then the deposition of her cannot be ignored and goes to the root of the matter. The present deposition of the complainant in the D.E. clearly exonerates the applicant from Item No. 52/C-2 6 OA No.1207/2022 the entire allegations levelled in the DE. She even denied of making the initial complaint against the applicant but also submitted that the signatures were taken on papers and it is a matter of record that the initial complaint is being written by SHO not by complainant.
3.2 The applicant stated that the deposition of main complainant, i.e., Smt.Shashi, PW-3, is being ignored on the pretext of being won over amounts to non-consideration of deposition of the main complainant. There is no evidence in the entire D.E. to come to a conclusion that the witness has been won over but still merely on suspicion and surmises, the EO acting arbitrarily decided to ignore the deposition of main witness by claiming the same deposition by won over witness. 3.3 Applicant also stated that the deposition of SHO i.e. Shri C.L. Meena, the then SHO PS Jafrabad cannot be taken as a piece of evidence in the present DE to give a finding of guilt against the applicant. It is a matter of record that SHO Shri Meena is not an eye witness to any of alleged incident. The statement of SHO is on the basis of written statement Item No. 52/C-2 7 OA No.1207/2022 recorded as also of Smt. Shashithat too being written by SHO himself. Smt. Shashi has come and deposed in DE and thus, previously recorded statement of Shashi cannot be taken into account as it is in violation of Rules 15(3) and 16(3) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.
3.4 Applicant also submitted that the information came out during the cross-examination of witnesses has not been factored in by the Inquiry Officer while giving his finding as he is under an obligation to consider all the evidence that has come on record in DE. It is further stated that there is no evidence in the entire DE other than the statement of SHO (C. L. Meena) who is not the eyewitness to even suggest that the applicant was at the scene when the complainant was beaten. The applicant submits that SHO (C. L. Meena) being annoyed with the applicant has himself written the complaint for the complainant. The alleged ego of the senior officer results into malice against the junior officials and the present case is result of the personal malice of SHO, C. L. Meena against the applicant. The clarification of the facts on phone Item No. 52/C-2 8 OA No.1207/2022 is being interpreted by the SHO as instances of unprofessionalism and in-subordination. The averment of not doing investigation in a professional manner and beating in front of the applicant holds no ground in the light of deposition made by the complainant in DE. The order of Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are passed in total ignorance of the deposition of the complainant. Thus the same is bad in law. The depositions of PW-4, 5 and 9 make it clear that the applicant was not present at the scene of beating of complainant or at the time of minor tiff but on the contrary, the SHO Jafrabad wrote the initial statement of Smt. Shashi and only took her signature on that statement. Smt. Shashi clearly denies of giving any complaint against the applicant even initially and on the contrary, she deposes that her signatures were taken by the SHO on papers. This makes it clear that the evidence that has come on record in the present DE has not been dealt fairly and the finding of EO is based on ignoring the relevant evidence that has come on record. There is no lapse on the part of investigation of the Item No. 52/C-2 9 OA No.1207/2022 applicant. The PWs coming in the DE clearly submits that applicant was not present at the scene of beating. The girl was returned, necessary action was taken against the culprits, as such there was no prejudice caused to the investigation, no malafide on the part of the applicant and thus the present case is not a case of misconduct.
3.5 Applicant further contended that the present case is a case of no misconduct and no evidence as the testimony of Sh. C. L. Meena, the then SHO/Jafrabad could not be taken as credible as he was annoyed with applicant on baseless matter and thereby made a conspiracy against applicant due to malice and anger, in fact the applicant was not on duty on 15.03.16 and PW-4 i.e. HC Sikander was on emergency duty. The call which was made about the quarrel in front of PS Jafrabad should have been attended by PW-4 i.e. HC Sikander but PW-10 i.e. SHO himself attended and recorded the statement and got a case FIR No. 161/16 registered by SHO himself.
Item No. 52/C-2 10 OA No.1207/2022 3.6. Applicant also stated that the present case is an example of not considering the defence of the applicant and further ignoring the evidence in the favour of the applicant, thus, vitiating the DE. He also contended that the Inquiry Officer is under an obligation to record a finding on each article of charge discussing the evidence that has come on record and further the same obligation is cast on the IO by Rule 16 (ix)of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rule, 1980. The findings are in violation of Rule 16 (ix) of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rule, 1980, as there is no discussion on the defence of the applicant nor are any evidence mentioned in support of the finding of the IO. The findings are based on suspicious and surmises and do not deal with the evidence. The applicant is placing its reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in case of UOI Vs. G. Krishna whereby it has been held: -
"While appreciating the evidence, the entire legal defence has to be considered if the evidence only supporting the case of the department is taken into consideration and the other evidence which is equally supporting the case of the employee is omitted to be considered, it would amount to Item No. 52/C-2 11 OA No.1207/2022 non-application of the mind and biased attitude of the Enquiry Officer."
3.7 The punishment imposed upon the applicant is too severe and harsh and highly disproportionate to the allegations levelled against the applicant. The orders of Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are bad in law as these orders did not deal with specific submissions raised in the Appeal by the applicant, passed as bald order in a mechanical and non-speaking manner taking into consideration extraneous matter in the form of previous record that too at the back of the applicant without affording the applicant any opportunity to defend and thus, the said act is in violation of the principles of natural justice. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY RESPONDENTS
4. The respondents have filed their counter reply on 27.11.2020, wherein, they have stated that a departmental enquiry was initiated against ASI (Exe.) Madan Singh, i.e., the applicant herein vide office order dated 16.05.2016 on the allegations that on 15.03.2016, at about 10:00 pm, Item No. 52/C-2 12 OA No.1207/2022 complainant Smt. Shashi w/o Late Sh. Kamal Singh r/o H. No. 98, Mata Mandir Wali Gali, Old Maujpur, Delhi met SHO/Jafrabad and reported that she had got registered a case vide FIR No. 159/16 u/s 363 of IPC at PS Jafrabad regarding kidnapping of her daughter Shivani, aged about 16 years by one Atul s/o Ram Chander r/o H.No. 30, Gali No.4, Phase-10, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. On the same day, complainant Smt. Shashi came to the police station to provide some mobile numbers to the applicant being Investigating Officer for search of her kidnapped daughter, as these mobile numbers were provided by Saloni, one of the friends of kidnapped girl Shivani, whom she (Shivani) had contacted recently but the applicant did not bother to make investigation on these mobile numbers.
4.1 Further, when the complainant began to return to her house, Sunny, Raj, Monika and Jyoti restrained her outside PS Jafrabad and beaten her. During this scuffle, the complainant requested the applicant to help her but the applicant did not bother and took his motorcycle and left the Item No. 52/C-2 13 OA No.1207/2022 place. Thereafter, she made a PCR call and also informed the Duty Officer.
4.2. The respondents submit that in this regard, SHO/Jafrabad contacted the applicant on his mobile phone no.9871985763 to enquire the facts. On this, the applicant replied that mobile numbers provided by the complainant were found switched off and what could he do? He did not take action being an I.O./Police Officer, as the complainant of the case was being beaten in front of him. The applicant replied in a very unprofessional manner that there was a quarrel of two ladies and how could he do anything? And even, he was not on emergency duty. The DE was initially entrusted to Sh. Sanjay Singh, ACP/Operation Cell/NE for conducting the same on day-to-day basis and he submitted the findings within the stipulated period. The Enquiry Officer prepared the summary of allegations, list of witnesses, list of documents along with other relied upon documents and served upon the applicant on 15.06.2016. The contents were explained to him in Hindi. The applicant did not admit the Item No. 52/C-2 14 OA No.1207/2022 allegations and preferred to face the enquiry. The applicant was asked to furnish the name of his defence assistant as per the provisions contained in S.O. No.125/2010 (A-20) but he did not avail this facility.
4.3 During the D.E. proceedings, 10 PWs were examined and due opportunity was given to the applicant to cross-examine them. After examining all the PWs, E.O. prepared the charges against the applicant, which was approved by the disciplinary authority on 30.03.2017 and served upon the applicant on 25.04.2017. The applicant did not admit the charge and submitted his defence statement to the Enquiry Officer on 01.05.2017. After going through the statements of PWs, defence statement of the applicant and other material on record, the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings to the disciplinary authority on 16.06.2017 with a conclusion that the charge framed against the applicant is proved. 4.4 The respondents further submitted that tentatively agreeing with the findings of the E.O., a copy of the same was served upon the applicant vide this office letter dated Item No. 52/C-2 15 OA No.1207/2022 19.06.2017 with a direction to submit his representation, if any, against the findings of the E.O. within 15 days from the date of receipt, failing which, it will be presumed that he has nothing to say in his defence and matter will be decided ex- parte on merits. Besides, he was also called upon to show cause as to why his suspension period from 15.03.2016 to 22.03.2016 should not be treated as period not spent on duty for all intents and purposes. The applicant submitted his representation against the findings of the E.O. on 17.07.2017. 4.5 The Disciplinary Authority had gone through the findings of the E.O., representation of the applicant and other record available on file. The applicant was also heard in O.R. on 28.07.2017. The pleas taken by the applicant were not found convincing. On perusal of DE file and case FIR Nos. 159/16, 161/16 and MLC of complainant Smt. Shashi, it was clear that the applicant did not make investigation regarding mobile phone numbers provided to the applicant by complainant Smt. Shashi for tracing her daughter. The applicant could have produced the CDRs of the provided Item No. 52/C-2 16 OA No.1207/2022 numbers but he did not do so. He failed to investigate the case properly whereas he was provided sufficient information, i.e., mobile numbers of the suspected persons, which shows negligence, carelessness and unprofessional attitude on his part. The allegations levelled against him were also proved during the D.E. proceedings. It was also clear that the applicant was present when the complainant was being beaten by alleged Sunny, Raj, Monika and Jyoti. The complainant had specifically mentioned in FIR No.161/16 that the applicant was present when she was assaulted and he did not intervene despite her request for the same. It was unprofessional on the part of the applicant to say "what can I do, if the mobile numbers are switched off". He did not produce any CDRs regarding the same or mention the time when he made calls on the said numbers.
4.6 In view of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, representation submitted by the applicant and overall discussion, the Disciplinary Authority awarded a punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service permanently to the Item No. 52/C-2 17 OA No.1207/2022 applicant entailing proportionate reduction in his pay from Rs. 41,600/- to Rs. 39,200/- and his suspension period from 15.03.2016 to 22.03.2016 was decided as period 'not spent on duty' for all intents and purposes vide office order No.FXVI/23/2016/10573-88/HAP/NE (P-II) dated 19.08.2017. The applicant received copy of penalty order on 22.08.2017 and he filed his appeal against the penalty order on 19.09.2017.The appeal preferred by the applicant was rejected by the appellate authority, i.e. Jt. CP/ER, Delhi vide order No. 1765-69/SO/ER(AC-Il) dated 14.05.2019.
REBUTTAL TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE
RESPONDENTS
5. In response to the counter reply filed by the respondents, the applicant has also filed rejoinder on 23.05.2022 wherein it is stated that the deposition of Smt. Shashi cannot be ignored in present D.E. The deposition of SHO Sh. C. L. Meena is to be seen in the light of fact that Sh. C.L. Meena is not the eye witness. The deposition of Sh. C.L. Meena is based on so called complaint of Smt. Shashi. The applicant has further bringing Item No. 52/C-2 18 OA No.1207/2022 on record that Sh. C.L. Meena was personally annoyed with the applicant and that was the reason, the complaint was written by SHO Sh. C. L. Meena and not by the complainant. The applicant even has been subjected to physical assault by the same SHO on 26.12.2015 and the applicant got his medical done at GTB Hospital, Dilshad Garden after putting up lot of efforts on 02.01.2016. The SHO Sh. C. L. Meena was personally biased against the applicant. The applicant getting the medical done was in the knowledge of SHO Sh. C. L. Meena and was, thus, hell bound to teach the applicant a lesson.
CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES
6. Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the order/judgment of various Courts/Tribunal namely; (i) Order/judgment dated 08.09.2010 of Hon'ble Apex court in SLP (Civil) No. 20428 of 2007 in the matter of M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri Masood Ahmed Khan;
(ii) Order/judgment dated 19.12.2008 of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7431/2008 in the matter of Roop Singh Item No. 52/C-2 19 OA No.1207/2022 Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., (2009) 2 SC 570; (iii) Order/judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the matter of UOI Vs. G. Krishna; (iv)Order/judgment dated 10.04.1996 of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in C.W.P. No. 14674/1994 in the matter of Ramphal Vs. Govt. of Haryana 1996 (6) SLR 801; and (v) Order/judgment dated 02.09.2010 of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 271 of 2009 in the matter of Munshi Ram Vs. GNCTD.
6.1 Learned counsel for the respondents places reliance on the order/judgment of various Courts namely, (i) Order/judgment dated 01.03.2011 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5861/2007 in the matter of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011)4SCC584; and (ii) Order/judgment dated 16.04.2009 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2588/2009 in the matter of The Govt. of A.P. and Ors. Vs. P. Chandra Mouli & Ors. (2009, 13SCC272).
Item No. 52/C-2 20 OA No.1207/2022
7. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and considered the submissions made by them and have also carefully perused the pleadings on record as well as judgments relied upon by the counsels for the parties. ANALYSIS
8. The following allegations were framed against the applicant vide order dated 16.05.2016: -
"that on 15.03.2016, at about 10:00 PM complainant Smt. Shashi W/o Late Kamal Singh R/o H. No.98, Mata Mandir Wali Gali Old Maujpur, Delhi met SHO/Jafrabad and reported that she had got registered a case FIR No. 159/16 u/s 363IPC at PS Jafrabad, regarding kidnapping of her daughter namely Shivani, age about 16 years, by one Atul S/o RamChander r/oH. No. 30, Gali No. 4, Phase-10, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar Delhi. One the same day complainant Smt. Shashi came to police station to provide some mobile numbers to the IO/ASI Madan Singh for search of her kidnapped girl, as these mobile numbers were provided by Saloni, one of the friends of kidnapped girl Shivani, who she (Shivani) has contacted recently. But ASI Madan Singh did not bother to make investigation on these mobile numbers. Further, when complainant begun to return her house,on Sunny, Raj, Monika and Jyoti restrained her outside the police station Jafrabad and beaten her. During this scuffle complainant requested to ASI Madan Singh to help her, but ASI Madan Singh to help her, but ASI Madan Singh did not bother and took his motorcycle and left the place. Thereafter she made a call on 100 and also informed to Duty Officer.
In this regard SHO/Jafrabad contacted ASI Madan Singh on his mobile number 9871985763 to enquire the facts. On this, ASI Madan Singh replied that mobile numbers Item No. 52/C-2 21 OA No.1207/2022 provided by the complainant were found switched off and what could he do? He did not take action being an I.O./Police Officer, as the complainant of the case was being beaten in front of him. ASI Madan Singh replied in a very unprofessional manner that there was a quarrel of two ladies and how could he do anything? And even, he was not on emergency duty."
9. Upon denial of the charges by the applicant, IO and PO were appointed by the disciplinary authority to conduct the inquiry proceedings. Inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer, who after completing the same submitted the Inquiry Report to the disciplinary authority. After examination of the inquiry report, the same was supplied to the applicant to which the applicant has submitted his representation. Thereafter the disciplinary authority after considering the IO's report and the applicant's representation passed punishment order dated 19.08.2017 (Annexure-A/1) stated as under: -
"During the D.E. proceedings, 10 PWs were examined and due opportunity was given to the delinquents to cross- examine them. After examining all the PWs, E.O. prepared the charge against the delinquent, which was got approved from Disciplinary Authority on 30.03.2017 and served upon delinquent on 25.04.2017. After that, the delinquent was asked to submit his defence witness and but he has not availed the facility. The delinquent did not Item No. 52/C-2 22 OA No.1207/2022 admit the charge and submitted his defence statement to the Enquiry Officer on 01.05.2017.
After going through the statements of PW's, DWs, defence statement of delinquent and other material on record, the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings to Disciplinary Authority on 16.06.2017 with the conclusion that the charge framed against the delinquent is proved.
I have gone through the findings of the E.O., representation of the delinquent and other record available on file. He was also heard in O.R. The pleas taken by him were not found convincing. On perusal of DE file & case FIR No. 159/16, 16/16 and MLC of the complainant Shashi it is clear that the delinquent did not make investigation regarding the mobile phone numbers provided to him by the complainant Shashi for tracing her daughter, the delinquent could have produced the CDRs of the provided numbers but he did not do so. He failed to investigate the case properly whereas he has provided sufficient information/mobile numbers of the suspected persons, which shows negligence, carelessness & unprofessional attitude on his part & the allegation leveled against him have also been proved during the D.E. proceedings. It is also clear that the delinquent was present when complainant was being beaten by the alleged Sunny, Raj, Monika, Jyoti. The complainant has specifically mentioned in the FIR No. 161/16 that 10/ ASI Madan Singh was present when she was assaulted and he did not intervene despite her request for the same.
It was unprofessional on the part of delinquent to say what can I do, if the mobile numbers are switched off'. He did not produce any CDR regarding the same or mentioned the time when he made calls on the said numbers.
In view of the findings of the: Enquiry Officer, representation submitted by the delinquent & overall discussion, I, Dr. Ajit Kumar Singla, IPS, Dy. Commissioner of Police, North-East District, Delhi, hereby award a punishment of forfeiture of 02 years approved service permanently to ASI Madan Singh, No. 2204/NE (PIS No. 28883727) for his above lapses entailing proportionate reduction in his pay from Rs.
Item No. 52/C-2 23 OA No.1207/2022 41600/- to Rs. 39200/- with immediate effect. His suspension period from 15.03.2016 to 22.03.2016 is decided as period not spent on duty.
Let a copy of this order be given to ASI Madan Singh, No. 2204/NE (PIS No.28883727) free of cost. He can file an appeal to Jt. CP/Eastern Range, New Delhi against this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order on a non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs. 0.75 paisa by enclosing a copy of this order, if he so desires."
10. The applicant preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority after considering the appeal of the applicant rejected the same vide order dated 14.5.2019. For facility of reference, it would be appropriate to quote the relevant portion of the appellate order, the same reads as under: -
"In this regard, SHO/Jafrabad contacted the appellant on his mobile No.9871985763 to enquire the facts. On this, the appellant replied that mobile numbers provided by the complainant were found switched off and what could he do? He did not take action being an I.O./Police Officer, as the complainant of the case was being beaten in front of him. The appellant replied in a very unprofessional manner that there was a quarrel of two ladies and how could he do anything? And even, he was not on emergency duty.
For this misconduct, a DE was initiated by the Disciplinary Authority vide No. 6729-50/HAP(P-II)/NE, dated 15.5.2016 against the appellant in which the EO submitted his findings to the Disciplinary Authority on 16.6.2017 with the conclusion that the charge framed against the appellant proved. A copy of the findings was served upon the appellant vide U.O. date 19.06.2017 and Item No. 52/C-2 24 OA No.1207/2022 the appellant submitted his representation against the finding on 17.7.2017.
The Disciplinary Authority had gone through the findings of the E.O., representation of the appellant and the other file record. He was also heard in O.R. on 28.7.2017. The pleas taken by the appellant were not found convincing. The Disciplinary Authority had perused the DE file, case file of case FIR Nos. 159/16, 161/16 and MLC of the complainant Smt. Shashi and it was clear that the appellant did not make investigation regarding mobile phone numbers provided to the appellant by the complainant Smt. Shashi for tracing her daughter. The appellant could have obtained the CDRs of the provided numbers but he did not do so. He failed to investigate the case properly whereas he was provided sufficient information/mobile numbers of thesuspected persons, which shows negligence, carelessness and unprofessional attitude on his part. The allegations levelled against him have also been proved during the D.E. proceedings. It is also clear that the appellant was present when the complainant was being beaten by alleged Sunny, Raj, Monika and Jyoti. The complainant has specifically mentioned in FIR No.161/16 that the appellant was present when she was assaulted and he did not intervene despite her request for the same.
It was unprofessional on the part of the appellant to say 'whatcan I do, if the mobile numbers are switched off'. He did not produce any CDR regarding the same or mentioned the time when he made calls on the said numbers.
In view of above, he was awarded a punishment of forfeiture oftwo years approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in his pay and his suspension period from 15.03.2016 to 22.3.2016 was also decided as period "Not spent on duty" for all intents and purposes vide order appealed against.
Item No. 52/C-2 25 OA No.1207/2022 Following the appeal, I have duly considered the submissions ofthe appellant and he was also heard in person. He has nothing to add to what he has already submitted in writing. He stated that there was no eye witness to the alleged quarrel and there was simple TU TU MAI MAI between the ladies as deposed by PW-9 and as per deposition of PW-3, there was no lapse on his part. who helped her in all ways. The other PWs have not supported the allegations as contained in the charge. He further stated that Inspr. CL Meena, SHO/Jafrabad was not happy from him and remained annoyed on baseless matter and thereby made such type of conspiracy against him as a matter of fact that he was not on duty on 15.3.2016 and PW-4 HC Sikander was on emergency duty and the call made about the quarrel. in front of PS/Jafrabad should have been attended by HC Sikander but SHO himself attended and recorded the statement and got a case FIR No. 161/16 registered by SHO himself. Although the allegations as alleged by SHO/Jafrabad has not been supported by any witness or any documentary evidence. Being a subordinate rankof ASI, he always remained submissive and faithful towards his seniors.Hence, these allegations are false and baseless against him.
The examination of the file record has revealed that the appellantwas present when the complainant was being beaten by alleged Sunny, Raj, Monika and Jyoti. The complainant appeared before SHO/Jafrabad with her above grievances. On her statement, a case vide: FIR No.161, dated 16.3.2016, u/s 323/341/34 IPC was registered at PS/Jafrabad in which, she specifically stated that while she was being beaten, she pleaded the appellant to intervene but he did not intervene and left the place riding on his motorcycle. Further, he did not tell the time when he made calls on the said numbers. When he was asked about taking of the CDR of the alleged Mobile Nos. he kept mum. Therefore, the submissions of the appellant are bereft of merit and have no substance.
Keeping in view the above, I have no reason to interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority. The appeal is hereby, rejected being devoid of merit and substance.
Item No. 52/C-2 26 OA No.1207/2022 Let the appellant be informed accordingly."
11. In the Order/judgment dated 01.03.2011, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5861/2007 in the matter of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584, had laid down the guidelines for the Courts/Tribunal while exercising judicial review in the matters of disciplinary proceedings.. For facility of reference, the relevant portion of the same reads as under: -
"...6. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. Courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (vide B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India - 1995 (6) SCC 749, Union of India vs. G. Gunayuthan - 1997 (7) SCC 463, and Bank of India vs. Degala Suryanarayana - 1999 (5) SCC 762, High Court of Judicature at Bombay vs. Shahsi Kant S Patil - 2001 (1) SCC416). "
Item No. 52/C-2 27 OA No.1207/2022 11.1. In the order/judgment dated 16.04.2009 of Hon'bleApex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2588/2009 in the matter of The Govt. of A.P. and Ors. Vs. P. Chandra Mouli & Ors.
(2009, 13 SCC 272), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: -
"...13. It is trite that the power of punishment to an employee is within the discretion of the employer and ordinarily the courts do not interfere, unless it is found that either the enquiry, proceedings or punishment is vitiated because of non-observance of the relevant rules and regulations or principles of natural justice or denial of reasonable opportunity to defend, etc. or that the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee.All these principles have been highlighted in Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Arora(1997(3) SCC 72) and Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank (2003(3) SCC 583).
14. It is not a case where the High Court should have entertained the writ petition when the Tribunal had disposed of the OA only on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. The impugned order is set aside. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case."
12. It is apparent that the facts and circumstances of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents i.e. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584, and The Govt. of A.P. and Ors. Vs. P. Chandra Mouli & Ors.,(2009) 13 SCC 272, are not similar to the case in hand. Still in the Item No. 52/C-2 28 OA No.1207/2022 above-mentioned judgments, observance to the principals of natural justice has been stressed as important measures to be adhered to while conducting departmental inquiry. Accordingly, we have tested the pleadings filed in this OA by the parties within the scope and ambit of above-mentioned judgments diligently and observed that the principles of natural justice have been observed by the respondents in this case.
13. We are aware of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 and The Govt. of A.P. & Ors. Vs. P. Chandra Mouli & Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 272, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents and agree that the Disciplinary Authority, and on appeal, the appellate authority, being fact- finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct.
Item No. 52/C-2 29 OA No.1207/2022
14. This Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. We also hold the view that this Tribunal while adjudicating a matter of this nature where a punishment has been imposed upon the applicant after Departmental Inquiry, needs to apply itself with open eyes to examine whether such an inquiry is conducted following the principles of natural justice and the findings/conclusions drawn by the Inquiry Authority are based on the logical outcomes of facts and material during the course of inquiry proceedings. The Tribunal while adjudicating such matters needs to follow an approach which is not pedantic. A Standing Order No. A-20 issued by the respondents, which mandates impartiality, fairness, and reliance on evidence while conducting inquiries. The instructions contained in Standing Order No. A-20 read as under: -
"(I) The findings should be based only on evidence brought on record. The evidence has to be weighed and evaluated carefully, intelligently, dispassionately and impartially.
Item No. 52/C-2 30 OA No.1207/2022 (II) The enquiry officer has to draw his inferences and record his reasoned conclusions, and while doing so, the defence evidence has also to be considered appropriately. The assessment of evidence and arguments on each charge should be done under separate headings.
(III) The enquiry officer should then forward the findings in duplicate along with the DE file to the concerned disciplinary authority. The Standing Order further clearly says that all enquiries judicial, departmental or other, into the conduct of the individuals must conform to the basic principle of natural justice, these are: -
a. The person proceeded against must be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself. b. The person charged with the duty of holding the enquiry must discharge his duty without bias and certainly without vindictiveness. He must conduct himself objectively and dispassionately, not merely during the procedural stages of the inquiry, but also in dealing with the evidence and the material on record when drawing up the final report. c. The conclusion must rest on the evidence and not on matters outside the record.
d. The conclusion must rest on the evidence and it must not be based on a misreading or misinterpretation of the evidence. Justice should not only be done but should appear to have been done."
15. It is now well established that the Disciplinary Authority in a quasi-judicial proceeding has to pass a detailed and speaking order, taking into account all the points raised by the charged officer, because such orders have civil consequences as held in Order/judgment dated 19.12.2008 of Item No. 52/C-2 31 OA No.1207/2022 Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7431/2008 in the matter of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., (2009) 2 SC 570. In the present case, the Disciplinary Authority has passed a speaking order after taking into account and considering the issues raised by the applicant in his reply to the findings recorded by the IO in his report. It is an established law that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted on the principle of preponderance of probability and in that given compass, the disciplinary authority and appellate authority need to decide the matter before them, of course observing principle of natural justice. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. The inferences drawn by the Enquiry Officer apparently were supported by the evidence in this case. It is seen in this matter that PW10 who is also a material witness has stated in the cross examination that he deposed that the behaviour of applicant (ASI Madan Singh) was Item No. 52/C-2 32 OA No.1207/2022 inappropriate. Being a Police Officer, his action was unethical or careless. While discussing the evidence, the Inquiry Officer held that the applicant was required to intervene in the incident specifically mentioned in FIR No.161/16. However, he did not intervene. It is further stated that the complainant specifically mentioned in the above FIR that the applicant was present when she was assaulted but he did not intervene despite her request. It is also relevant to point out that the above-mentioned FIR was registered on 16.3.2016 and the inquiry officer completed his inquiry and submitted report on 15.6.2017. These dates reveal considerable gap between the incident, registering FIR and the proceeding in the inquiry. Therefore, we agree to the conclusion drawn by the IO that PW3 deviating from her previous statement recorded at the time of lodging of the said FIR and possibility of winning over the said witnesses is not ruled out. We also agree with the conclusion drawn by the IO about unprofessional and careless work ethic of the applicant as pointed out by PW10 in his statement and also during the course of cross examination in Item No. 52/C-2 33 OA No.1207/2022 the inquiry. Further bias and malice has been alleged by the applicant against the then SHO, namely, Shri C.L. Meena. However, when the applicant has chosen not to make him as a party in the present case, we are not inclined to go into this aspect.
16. We find that the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority applied their mind on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of forfeiture of 02 years approved service permanently to ASI Madan Singh, No. 2204/NE (PIS No. 28883727) for his above lapses entailing proportionate reduction in his pay from Rs. 41600/- to Rs. 39200/- with immediate effect. His suspension period from 15.03.2016 to 22.03.2016 is decided as period 'not spent on duty'. The Appellate Authority while deciding the appeal of the applicant duly considered the submissions of the applicant and he was also heard in person. Applicant was even called in the Orderly Room and given an opportunity by the respondents before passing the order.
Item No. 52/C-2 34 OA No.1207/2022
17. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, it appears that the respondents have taken a lenient view on the misdeed of the applicant, who is a uniformed Police Officer. In the instant case, the applicant has acted in an utmost careless manner. He also acted in defiance to the order of his superior. This action on his part reveals his disrespectful attitude to uphold the rule of law and throws ample light on his conduct and discipline.
18. We come to the conclusion that the OA filed by the applicant is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending MAs, if any, also stand closed.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (R. N. Singh)
Member (A) Member(J)
/neetu/