Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Praveen Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 10 January, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-1866/2012
Reserved on: 04.01.2013.
Pronounced on:10.01.2013.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Sh. Praveen Kumar,
S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam Kaushik,
R/o Gali No.5, Mahalana Road,
Ashok Vihar, Sonepat,
Haryana
Constable No. 1247/0D (NOW 7502/DAP)
PIS No. 28931838,
Posted at 3rd Bn. DAP,
Vikas Puri Police Complex,
New Delhi-110018. . Applicant
(through Sh. Sama Singh with Sh. Bhawani Shankar, Advocate)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through
Its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-2.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police Headquarters,
MSO Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-2.
3. The Special Commissioner of Police,
Armed Police,
Delhi Police Headquarters,
MSO Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-2.
4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
3rd Bn. DAP,
Vikas Puri Police Complex,
New Delhi-18. . Respondents
(through Sh. Vijay Pandita, Advocate)
O R D E R
Sh. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) The applicant, Constable Praveen Kumar, has sought quashing of order dated 30.06.2011 (Annexure A-1) passed by respondent No.4 whereby he was awarded with punishment. He has also sought quashing of order dated 26.12.2011 (Annexure A-2) by which his appeal against the impugned order dated 30.06.2011 was rejected. He has further sought quashing of disagreement note dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure A-3) issued by respondent No.4.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on the complaint of Head Constable Narender Kumar No. 4135/DAP an enquiry was instituted against the applicant for demanding money from the complainant. It was alleged that complainant Narender Kumar was carrying out construction in his plot situated in the area in which the applicant was a Beat Constable. The enquiry was conducted initially by Inspector Sushil Chandra Sharma, who submitted his findings concluding therein that the charge against Constable Praveen Kumar has not been proved. However, respondent No.4 not being satisfied with the findings of the Enquiry Officer (EO) issued a disagreement note placed at Annexure A-3 of the O.A. on the following grounds:-
1. Complaint given by PW-1, HC Narender, No.4135/DAP, Ist BN, DAP, indicates that demand was made as mentioned in complaint, seems that he turned hostile.
Telephonic conversation was not considered by EO, in which demand is clear.
An educated Delhi Police, HC cannot be pressurized by a labourer/meson.
If Meson pressurized the complainant than Mason/Mistri should have been examined by the EO, but EO left this aspect untouched. Thereafter, the applicant was given an opportunity to represent against the disagreement note and after taking into consideration the record of DE file and the representation made by the applicant against the disagreement note, respondent No.4 concluded that the applicant was guilty and awarded him punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service permanently with proportionate reduction in his pay. His suspension period from 31.05.2010 to 06.01.2011 was also treated as not spent on duty for all intents and purposes. Subsequently, the applicant filed an appeal against the aforesaid order, which was rejected by respondent No.3 on 26.12.2011.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that during the DE proceedings, the complainant Narender Kumar had stated that no money had been demanded from him and therefore the EO had concluded that there was no evidence to connect the applicant with the charge and had recommended that the enquiry be closed. He further stated that instead of dropping the DE, the authorities proceeded to issue a disagreement note. The applicants objection to the points raised against the disagreement note were disregarded and the Disciplinary Authority decided to punish him despite the fact that complainant Head Constable Narender Kumar had categorically denied that any money had been demanded from him and that he had made the complaint on instigation and misrepresentation by mason Kapil Mehto. He has further stated that telephonic conversation cannot be relied upon to prove the allegations against the applicant beyond doubt as no report from forensic laboratory is available to establish the genuineness of the voice in the alleged tape conversation. Learned counsel has further stated that during the course of DE, efforts were made by the Enquiry Officer to examine Kapil Mehto. However, he did not turn up and as such could not be examined. Learned counsel for the applicant has cited a number of judgments of Apex Court, Honble High Court and Central Administrative Tribunal to support his contention.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that Head Constable Narender Kumar had filed a complaint against the applicant stating therein that he had constructed two rooms at the back side of his house at Saboli Road, Sanjay Colony, Narela where the applicant was a Beat Constable. Head Constable Narender Kumar has alleged in his complaint that the applicant had demanded money from him on phone and was calling him repeatedly for the same. Head Constable Narender Kumar has further stated in his complaint that he taped this telephonic conversation made through the mobile of his daughter. The respondents have further stated that although Head Constable Narender Kumar detracted from his complaint in the departmental enquiry proceedings, since his written complaint was on record his statement in the departmental enquiry proceedings cannot be relied upon. Moreover, Inspector Puran Pant has deposed in the departmental enquiry proceedings that call details of Mobile Nos. 9013030048, 9211802428 and 9968708655 for the period from 24.04.2010 to 08.05.2010 were procured from service provider. These details clearly indicate that the applicant had been repeatedly calling the Head Constable Narender Kumar during the period when construction work was going on. The respondents have also stated that for this reason they concluded that Head Constable Narender Kumar turned hostile during departmental enquiry proceedings on account of departmental loyalty and that his statement in the departmental enquiry proceedings cannot be relied upon.
5. We have heard both parties and perused the material placed on record. We are inclined to agree with the view taken by the respondents that the Head Constable Narender Kumar was pressurized by the applicant to give money during the period the construction was going on. There was no reason for Head Constable Narender Kumar to make a written complaint against the applicant if no such demand had been made. The call records procured from the service provider also indicate that the applicant was in touch with Head Constable Narender Kumar. We, therefore, conclude that there is no reason to interfere in the punishment meted out to the applicant. The present Original Application is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Vinita/