Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anil Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 14 February, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 2241/2008 New Delhi this the 14th day of February, 2011. Honble Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) Anil Kumar, PIS No. 28911433, R/o 64, Khirki Village, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi Applicant (By Advocate Shri Anil Singal) VERSUS 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Commissioner of Police, Police Head Quarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Jt. Commissioner of Police, Traffic Police Head Quarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. Dr. A.K. Singh (DANIPS Cadre Group `B) D.C.P./ Traffic (SR), Through Commissioner of Police Police Head Quarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 4. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Traffic (SR), Sadiq Nagar, South Distt., New Delhi Respondents (By Advocate Shri Ram Kawar) O R D E R Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A):
Joint departmental proceedings initiated against the Applicant and Constable Jai Hind by order dated 18.08.2006 culminated in the punishment of forfeiture of two years of service permanently for both the delinquents with further direction that their period of suspension from 27.07.2006 to 13.09.2006 would be treated as period not spent on duty for all practical purposes. Their joint appeal did not find favour with the appellate authority and it was rejected by order dated 01.10.2007. Constable Anil Kumar, the Applicant herein is assailing the order dated 18.08.2006 (Annex A-1) ordering initiation of the departmental proceedings; findings of the inquiry authority dated 30.11.2006 (Annex A-2); order of the disciplinary authority dated 01.02.2007 (Annex A-3); and order dated 01.10.2007 of the appellate authority.
2. The following Summary of Allegations (SOA) was served upon the Applicant and the co-accused, Constable Jai Hind:
It is alleged against Ct. Anil No. 3842/T and Ct. Jaihind No. 3220/T that on 28.7.06, while posted in Defence Colony Traffic Circle and detailed at Delhi Haat were found indulging in malpractices by demanding and accepting money from the conductor of blue line bus bearing registration number DL-1PB-5309 during PRG surveillance.
On 28/7/06 Sh.Surinder Kumar s/o Sh. Fateh Singh r/o H. No. 257, Main Mathura Road, Badarpur Delhi came to PRG office and made a written complaint that Ct. Anil Kumar at the INA market bus stop was demanding entry money of Rs.1100/- and threatening to get his buses impounded if payment was not made by 28/7/06. The above complaint was entrusted to the undersigned by the ACP/T PRG with the direction to take immediate necessary action.
Accordingly a special team comprising the undersigned, Inspr. Nav Rattan, TI/PRG and SI Pankaj Malik ZO/PRG were constituted. Sh. Surinder Singh produced two currency notes of Rs. 500/- numbering 8CV 053420 and OEF 977034 and one currency note of Rs. 100/- bearing number 2RF 604676. These currency notes were signed by Sh. Surinder Kumar and the undersigned. A memo regarding handing over of these numbered currency notes was also prepared. The complainant was briefed that these currency notes be handed over to the traffic staff if they demand entry money.
At about 5.30 PM the PRG team along with the complainant left the PRG office and started wait for the bus of the complainant to arrive at Aurbindo Marg near AIIMS fly over and well before the Delhi Haat in the carriageway going towards Safdarjung Tomb.
At about 6.30 PM the bus No. DL-1 PB 5309 came from Badarpur side. Complainant Sh. Surinder got stopped the bus and introduced the conductor Sh. Sanjay Kumar s/o Sh. Lal Singh r/o 101, Main Mathura Road Badarpur New Delhi. Sh. Surinder Kumar handed over the signed currency notes of Rs.1100/- to Sh. Sanjay Kumar conductor and told him that if the traffic staff demands entry money then these currency notes be handed over to them. The conductor boarded the bus and bus started moving towards the Delhi Hatt. The PRG team alongwith Sh. Surinder Kumar followed the bus in private car. When the bus reaches near Delhi Haat, the above said bus stopped and it was noticed that two constables in traffic uniform were standing at a distance of about 10-12 steps to each other near the police assistance booth. The PRG team also stopped the car behind the bus. It was noticed that conductor Sanjay alighted from the bus went to a constable and started talking to that traffic constable. Soon both were seen moving behind the police assistance booth. After some time conductor Sanjay came back to the bus and enquiries were made from him. On enquiries Sh.Sanjay conductor told that Ct. Anil had signalled his bus to stop. When he alighted from the bus and started moving towards Ct. Anil then Ct. Anil signalled him with his head to go to the other constable. He reached the other constable and told him about the entry money and handed over the signed currency notes to him. The other constable accepted the same. On this, conductor Sanjay was brought back to the place where the entry money was given to the traffic constable. He identified the traffic constable whose identity was disclosed as Ct. Jaihind No. 3220/T. He was asked about the acceptance of entry money of Rs.1100/- from conductor Sh.Sanjay and was asked to hand over the same. Ct. Jaihind No. 3220/T took out the money from the left side pocket of the pant and handed over the currency notes of Rs.1100/- bearing the signature of the undersigned as well as of Sh. Surinder. Their numbers were also checked and found the same as were noted in the handing over memo. These currency notes were seized vide memo. Smelling the activity of the PRG team, the other Ct. (Ct. Anil Kumar) who was also found present there, slipped away from the spot.
Detailed statement of Sh. Sanjay Kumar s/o Sh. Lal Singh r/o 101 Main Mathura Road Badarpur, New Delhi, permanent address village Mukand Garhi, Post Sikandrabad Distt. Bulandshahar, U.P. and of Sh. Surinder Kumar s/o Sh. Fateh Singh were recorded.
The copy of duty roster dated 28/7/06 of Defence Colony Circle was obtained. As per duty roster Ct. Anil No. 3842/T (INA Market) and Ct. Jaihind No. 3220/T (Delhi Haat) have been detailed at DFC-II. As per DD No. 2 dated 28/7/06, Ct. Anil No. 3842/T and Ct. Jaihind No. 3220/T have been sent for duty at 7.35 A.M. at DFC-11.
At about 8.45 p.m. Inspr. Navrattan TI/PRC informed Defence Colony Circle to sent Ct. Anil Kumar No. 3842/T at Delhi Haat who was performing duty with Ct. Jaihind No. 3220/T but it was found that in DD No. 23 dated 28/7/06, Defence Colony Circle, it was inadvertently mentioned to send Const. Anil Kumar No. 3842/T and Const. Jaihind No. 3220/T. The circle office got Ct. Anil Kumar searched through Head Const. Jaipal No. 626/T but he was not found and thus Ct. Anil Kumar No. 3842/T was marked absent vide DD No. 29 dated 28/7/06 at 9.15 p.m. It further came into notice that Ct. Jaihind No. 322/T was got marked absent at 5.45 pm vide DD No. 21 dated 28/7/06 by TI/Defence Colony whereas he was found accepting illegal entry money by the PRG team at his duty point at about 6.45 PM.
On 29/7/06 conductor Sh. Sanjay was summoned again to the PRG office to identify Ct. Anil Kumar No. 3842/T came to the PRG office at about 4.15 p.m. Sh. Sanjay identified him as the same constable who was demanding money for the last 2/3 days and yesterday evening he stopped his bus No. DL-IPB 5309 and signalled him to handover the entry money to other constable. The identification memo was prepared. Ct. Anil Kumar No. 3842/T refused to sign the memo.
The seized currency notes were kept in an envelope and sealed with the seal of MI. The same was deposited with the LO/RND with the direction to produce the same as and when directed.
The above act on the part of Ct. Anil Kumar No. 3842/T and Ct. Jinhind No. 3220/T gross misconduct lack of integrity indulgence in corruption and dereliction in the discharge of their official duties which renders them liable for departmental action under the provision of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980. (emphasis added) The enquiry officer held the charge against the Applicant and the co-accused to have been substantiated.
3. The learned counsel for the Applicant contended that the only charge against the Applicant was that he had signalled the bus to stop and when the conductor of the bus alighted from it, he signalled the conductor to go to the other constable. The PW-7, Sanjay Kumar, however, stated that he handed over the money to Constable Anil Kumar, the Applicant. It was argued that this was totally at variance with the allegation in the SOA. The PW-6, Surinder Kumar, the complainant, has only stated that his conductor paid Rs.1100, but has not stated as to whom the money was paid. He also stated that he knew the Applicant, who used to ask him to park his vehicle away from the 'No Parking Zone'. It was pointed out that PW-2, Inspector Rajender Singh of the PRG team had stated that he had neither heard the Applicant demanding money nor had he seen the transaction of money being given to the Applicant. It was also stated by this witness that money was recovered from Constable Jai Hind, the co-accused in the departmental proceedings. PW-4, Nav Ratan, Traffic Inspector in the PRG team, has also stated that Sanjay told them that he went to the Applicant to give him the money but he (the Applicant) signalled him to give the money to the other constable. It was further stated that they went to the Constable to whom money was allegedly given and found that his name was Constable Jai Hind, from whom the money was also recovered. Advertence has also been made to the statement of the fourth witness for the defence, ASI Balwant Bhai, who was the Zonal Officer and under whom the Applicant was working. He had stated that on 06.07.2006 he had challaned and impounded one Blue Line bus and the driver of the bus had threatened Constable Anil Kumar and misbehaved with him. The learned counsel also pointed out that although the disciplinary authority has recorded the pleas of the Applicant, yet these have not been discussed and answered. The disciplinary authority in his order of punishment has recorded the following:
The main plea put forth by Const. Anil Kumar, No. 3842/T in his representation is as under:
1. No PW stated that he had made a demand of money from the bus owner or his conductor.
2. As per PW-7, he gave the money to Const. Anil Kumar, recovery was also made from him and his denial in taking part in the identification proceedings on 29.7.2006 falsifiies the deposition of PRG team.
3. PW-6 (complainant) is also silent about the money given to police constable. It is stated that the disciplinary authority has dismissed his arguments only by recording that the above pleas of the charged officer were baseless.
4. The Respondents, on the other hand, have opposed the cause of the Applicant by filing counter affidavit. The learned counsel for the Respondents contended that it was not correct to say that the only charge against the Applicant was that he only signalled that the amount may be paid to Constable Jai Hind. He would contend that the demand of money by the Applicant was also a charge against him as the conductor, Sanjay, had identified him as the person who had been demanding money for past 2/3 days. He would further contend that the Applicant ran away from the spot, which was sufficient indication of his guilt. He was marked absent at 9:15 pm, when he could not be traced. It was further contended that the OA filed by the co-accused, Constable Jai Hind, was dismissed by the Tribunal.
5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us.
6. PW-2 has stated that Constable Anil Kumar gave the signal to stop the bus and gave a signal to Sanjay, after which the co-accused went with the conductor to the police booth. Later money was recovered from Constable Jai Hind. The complainant also identified the Applicant as the person who was demanding money from the complainant. PW-4, TI Nav Ratan also made similar statement. PW-7, Sanjay changed his statement given to the PRG team to state that money was given to the Applicant. However, the PW-2 and PW-4 have steadfastly maintained that Sanjay had stated that he had given the money to the co-accused, Constable Jai Hind. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements of PW-2 and PW-4, who have no adversarial relations with the Applicant and no such case has been made out. There is no reason why they should be making false statements against the Applicant. The statement of DW-4, ASI, Balwant Bhai has no relevance as it is regarding some other incident. The Applicant has not given any reason how these incidents are linked. There is a strong preponderance of probability that the Applicant had demanded illegal gratification from the complainant and was instrumental in the co-accused accepting it. It is sufficient in the departmental proceedings to come to the conclusion of guilt if there is a preponderance of probability and there is no requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. We have also perused the judgement in the OA number 948/2008, in which the OA filed by the co-accused against the order of punishment has been dismissed. Corruption is a very serious issue and in any case involving corruption, the Tribunal has to tread most cautiously to ensure that the guilty do not get away on merely technical grounds.
7. On the basis of the above analysis, the OA is dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) ( L.K.Joshi )
Member (J) Vice Chairman (A)
sk