Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Inspector Inder Singh vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 29 August, 2008
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.1121/2008 New Delhi, this the 29th day of August, 2008 HONBLE MR.L.K. JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A) HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) 1. Inspector Inder Singh No.D-I/660, Special Branch, Delhi Police Delhi S/o Shri Bharat Singh R/o T-488, Gali No.7, Prem Nagar Road, Baljeet Singh, P.S. Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110 008. 2. Inspector Dharambir Singh NO.D-1/29, Special Branch (U/S), Delhi Police Delhi S/o Naumi Nath Upadhyay R/o E-132, Chankya Place-I, New Delhi-110 059. ..Applicants By Advocate: Shri Tarun Sharma. Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi Through Commissioner of Police Delhi Police Headquarter, I.P. Estate, Delhi. 2. Jt. Commissioner of Police Special Branch, Police Bhawan, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police/D.E. Cell Police Bhawan, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra. ORDER
By Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) OA has been filed by the then SHO, PS, Dabri Inspector Inder Singh and Inspector Investigation Dharambir Singh challenging the order dated 3.3.32008 (page 15) whereby a departmental enquiry has been initiated against both the above persons and order dated 10.8.2007 (page 51) whereby Inspector Dharambir Singh has been placed under suspension by declaring his Headquarter during suspension as District Lines/South West District (SWD).
2. It is submitted by the applicants that applicant No.1 was posted as SHO Dabri while applicant No.2 was the Investigating Inspector, Dabri on 1.11.2006 when an information was received from Mata Chanan Devi Hospital that one Smt. Veero Devi W/o Shri Dharambir Soni R/o Flat No.7 Pocket 13, DDA Flats, Mangla Puri, Delhi, aged 36 years was admitted to the hospital by her husband, namely, Dharambir Soni due to a bullet injury on which ASI Ramesh Chand sent a Rukka for registration of FIR and after registration of FIR, investigation was handed over to applicant No.2. On 4.11.2006, the injured became conscious and declared fit for statement in Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, whereupon applicant No.2 recorded her statement in which she stated that it was an accidental incident and nobody was responsible for that.
3. On the basis of statement made by Veero Devi, case under Section 307 IPC was converted to Section 338 IPC and due information was given to the higher authorities. Accordingly, challan was prepared by the SHO on 10.7.2007 under Section 338 IPC (page 37). It was seen by the ACP and Dy. CP also.
4. At this stage, case was transferred to DIU Unit, who got another statement of Veero Devi under pressure which is evident from her application moved before the Metropolitan Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the order dated 5.2.2008 passed by Honble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Crl) No.1607/2007 and 1614/2007. Honble High Court was placed to quash the FIR in toto yet respondents have initiated departmental enquiry against the applicants on the ground that they had not investigated the matter correctly and had wrongly converted the case under Section 338 IPC. Applicant No.1 had not supervised it correctly.
5. Moreover, applicant No.2 was placed under suspension and both were transferred from South West District.
6. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that respondents are acting in a biased manner because final special report was submitted by the ACP himself on the basis of Medico Legal Certificate yet applicants are being targeted. He has thus prayed that OA may be allowed.
7. Respondents on the other hand have submitted that there are lot of irregularities in the investigation inasmuch as Inspector Dharambir did not record the statement of Rahuls younger son under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The statement of Manoj Kumar, the elder son was recorded but it was not placed in the case file.
8. Moreover, in C.D. 2 dated 2.11.2006 Inspector Dharambir Singh had written the confession statement of accused wherein he had stated that he had fired on Smt. Veero Devi due to tension. The same Dharambir Singh had also sent a letter to the Dy.Commisisoner of Police, Licensing for cancellation of Arms Licence of Dharambir Soni on the ground that he had fired but on the next day, i.e., 7.11.2006 Inspector Dharambir gave a statement in court that incident occurred due to mishandling of arms, as a result of which accused got bail.
9. The applicants prepared the challan by converting 307 into 388 but since ACP found irregularities in the investigation, matter was reported to the Dy. Commissioner of Police, who ordered ACP/Operation Cell SWD to conduct an enquiry. ACP conducted the enquiry whereupon Smt. Veero Devi stated that she had not given any statement as recorded by Dharambir. She had further stated that Dharambir Soni had fired at her in intoxicated condition.
10. It was thus clear that Inspector Dharambir Singh investigated the case for his own interest and violated the procedure of law. Inspector Inder Singh, No.D-I/660 being SHO of P.S. Dabri failed to supervise the investigation of case properly and signed the challan under Section 338 IPC which shows his association with Inspector Dharambir Singh, No.D-I/29.
11. They have further explained that Inspector Dharambir Singh was received on transfer (under suspension) in Special Branch to facilitate the joint D.E. vide PHQs order No.60565-615/CB-I/HQ dated 19.10.2007 as Inspector Inder Singh was already posted in Special Branch. The susbsistence allowance of Inspector Dharambir Singh was increased from 50% to 75% w.e.f. 10.11.2007 under FR-53 vide order No.1258-88/HAP/SB(P-I) dated 5.2.2008.
12. As far as departmental enquiry is concerned, they have submitted though FIR has been quashed looking at the happy relations of family but departmental enquiry against Inspectors Dharambir Singh and Inder Singh was ordered for violating the procedure of law adopted by them during the course of investigation of the above mentioned case, therefore, no case is made out for interference at this stage. They would get full opportunity to defend themselves in the inquiry, therefore, O.A. may be dismissed.
13. We have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings.
14. From the perusal of order dated 03.03.2008, we find that departmental enquiry has been initiated because respondents feel statement of Veero Devi was not properly recorded by Inspector Dharambir because before ACP Ops. Cell/SWD Veero Devi had accepted Shri Dharambir Soni had fired upon her and that she had denied having given the statement as recorded by Dharambir. We do not know how far this allegation would stand scrutiny law because Veero Devi had herself not only filed application before the M.M. with a request to record her correct statement under Section 164 Cr.PC, but filed Writ Petition (Criminal) also before the Honble High Court and her consistent stand before both the proceeding was that the statement recorded earlier was correct and later on Police got her signatures under threat of arrest. It is relevant to note that Honble High Court while passing the order took cognizance of complainants statement that her second statement was not correctly recorded. Since the wife did not want any action to be taken against her husband, the FIR 1000/2006 was quashed by the Honble High Court, therefore, the net result is no FIR is in existence as on date.
15. When the FIR itself has been quashed by the Honble High Court the question whether it should have been under Section 307 or 338 loses its meaning because even H.C. has accepted Veero Devis first statement. As far as irregularities are concerned, which are stated to have been committed by the Inspector (Investigation), it remains only of academic interest because ultimately it cannot be stated any prejudice has been caused to the department due to the alleged irregularities. We hasten to add here that if respondents have evidence to show that investigations were not done properly for monetary gains, it becomes necessary to enquire into the matter because then definitely it is a misconduct. Applicants have not yet been issued summary of allegations, therefore, at this stage no finding can be recorded. It would be premature to entertain the grievance of applicant at this stage. Counsel for the applicants strenuously argued that this was a case where the lady, who was injured did not want any action to be taken against her husband, therefore, applicants cannot be dealt with departmentally for converting the case from 307 to 338. Moreover the fact that applicant no.2 had initially submitted a note to the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Licensing to cancel the arms license of Dharambir Soni shows his bonafides. Later on, since Smt. Veero Devi herself stated that the revolver was fired accidentally, naturally applicant no.2 could not have taken a contradictory stand in the court. He thus submitted in these circumstances, reliance placed by respondents in the order for initiating departmental enquiry on the so called statement recorded by ACP (Ops.) cannot be sustained specially when Honble High Court had recorded that as per Veero Devi, second statement was not correctly recorded.
16. We find some force in the argument of counsel for applicant. However, these points can be taken by them in their defence statement in case respondents issue summary of allegation. As on date we do not even know how respondents are going to charge the applicants, therefore, it would not be proper for us to comment on other aspects of the matter. Counsel for the applicants also submitted that though in order dated 03.3.2008 it is recorded that Inspector Dharambir Singh had investigated the case for his own interest but how he can be said to be interested in this case has not been elaborated at all, therefore, allegations are vague. As we have already noted above it would be open to the applicants to raise all these points in defence, if finally summary of allegation is issued to them. We are sure respondents would keep all these points in mind before issuing summary of allegation. As far as suspension is concerned, since respondents felt applicant No.2 had not conducted investigation properly they had right to put him under suspension in view of initiating the departmental enquiry, therefore, suspension order cannot be interfered with. Transfer is an incidence of service. Since they have been transferred in view of departmental enquiry, it cannot be interfered with. Moreover, they have just been transferred from one unit to the other in Delhi itself, therefore, on these grounds, this case calls for no interference. On the point of departmental enquiry, we are of the opinion that OA is premature at this stage. We do not even know ultimately what allegations would be levelled against the applicants by the respondents, therefore, this OA is dismissed as premature on the question of departmental enquiry. It would be open to the applicants to raise all these points before the authorities. We are sure authorities would apply their mind before taking any further action in the matter. No costs.
(MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER) (L.K. JOSHI) MEMBER (J) VICE CHAIRMAN (A) Rakesh