Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Inspr. Ombir Singh No.D-1/784 vs Commissioner Of Police on 6 August, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.3521/2009 This the 6th day of August, 2010 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE SHRI L. K. JOSHI, VICE-CHAIRMAN (A) Inspr. Ombir Singh No.D-1/784 S/o Goverdhan Singh, R/o Qtr. No. C-36, PS Geeta Colony, Delhi-110031. Applicant ( By Shri S. C. Sagar, Advocate ) Versus 1. Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi. Respondents ( By Shri Chandermani Bhardwaj for Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Adv. ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Applicant, an Inspector in Delhi Police, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, calling in question order dated 8.7.2009 passed by the disciplinary authority inflicting upon the applicant punishment of censure, as also order dated 3.11.2009 passed by the appellate authority dismissing his appeal against the order aforesaid.
2. A show cause notice for censure came to be issued to the applicant on 13.3.2009 on the allegation that on 11.11.2008, information vide DD No.22-A was received in PS K.M. Pur regarding an accident at U turn at INA Market, and that one injured Mohd. Akhtar was admitted to Trauma Centre, AIIMS by PCR staff. The said DD entry was entrusted to HC Ranjeet Singh who collected MLC of the injured from the hospital on 11.11.2008. The patient was declared unfit to make statement by the doctor, but the IO HC Ranjeet Singh kept the call pending instead of registering the case for 25 days. The case was registered vide FIR No.269 dated 6.12.2008 u/s 279/337 IPC PS K.M. Pur after a period of 25 days, and that too on receipt of information from the hospital regarding death of Mohd. Akhtar in the police station, vide DD No.7-A dated 6.12.2008. It was mentioned in the show cause notice that it was shocking to note that HC Ranjeet Singh would not know the patients condition for 25 days and would cleverly register the case at DD No.5-A to show as if he had got the case registered much before the report of the death of the injured that was received from the hospital, which would show mala fide, intentional and wilful camouflage of information on his part to hide his carelessness and ignorance about the predicament of the patient in the hospital, and that he could have registered the case 25 days before in a similar fashion instead of waiting while the patient was in the hospital. It was thus alleged that the HC registered the case on the DD entry on getting information from the hospital about the death of the injured and did not take legal action properly on DD No.22-A dated 11.11.2008 and failed to register the case on the day of the incident itself. The applicant, SHO, was alleged to have failed to monitor the action taken by the IO in the matter, which would show his casual attitude towards such cases.
3. The applicant replied to the show cause notice, wherein he pleaded that the notice had been issued on the report of an enquiry conducted by the PG Cell/SD into an anonymous complaint, which would be in violation of the instructions of CVC issued on 29.6.1999, vide which it has been clearly provided that no action should at all be taken on any anonymous or pseudonymous complaints and the same must be filed. He further pleaded that two informations regarding the accident under reference were received at the police station. The first information was received at 5.55 p.m. through W/Operator S-58 regarding the accident at INA Market U Turn and the same was recorded vide DD No.22-A dated 11.11.2008, while the other information was received at 8.10 p.m. from duty constable Bhupinder Singh from Trauma Centre, AIIMS, that one Mohd. Akhtar who sustained injuries in a road accident had been got admitted by ASI Joseph Lakra, E-99 PCR. This information was recorded vide DD No.30 dated 11.11.2008. Both the entries were marked to HC Ranjeet Singh for necessary action. The HC entered disposal of these DD entries vide DD No.48-B dated 11.11.2008. Regarding DD No.22-A, he mentioned that no accident was found to have taken place and the DD was kept as untraced, while regarding DD No.30-A he mentioned that the same was being kept pending. The entry of DD No.22-A was made in the PCR call/DD entry register, and HC Ranjeet Singh made an entry in the register that no accident was found, while with regard to DD entry No. 30-A which was made in the MLC register, he mentioned that the said entry was being kept pending. On checking of the MLC register, the applicant made the observation, I.O. to pursue the matter and take action. The HC filed DD No.48-B dated 11.11.2008 on 1.12.2008 vide DD No.11-B as the injured neither knew the number of the vehicle nor wanted any action in the matter, and made corresponding entry in the MLC register that the DD had been filed. The applicant mentioned that the SHO can monitor the action taken by various officers on the DD entries and MLCs, and that the monitoring registers were being maintained at the police station which he did effectively. He further mentioned that when the IO stated in the records that the accident was not found to have taken place, or that a particular DD entry had been filed because the injured did not want to take any action in the matter, he was left with no option but to accept the version of the IO, and that he could not be expected to go to each and every spot to verify all trivial matters, as also that no complaint had been made to any quarter including him by the aggrieved party till date; he did his best in monitoring the progress of the case and there was no cogent evidence to the contrary on the basis of which he could be accused of failure to exercise effective supervision in the case. The applicant also referred to a judgment of the High Court of Delhi, wherein, according to him, it has been held that absence of cogent evidence to substantiate allegations leveling of charge of failure to exercise effective supervision over subordinates would be perverse and cannot stand judicial scrutiny. The disciplinary authority considered the reply of the applicant and rejected the same, confirming the notice of censure, by observing as follows:
1. Even though complaint was anonymous, the facts were all confirmed properly during enquiry. Out of a number of instances mentioned therein only the verified ones were looked into and taken cognizance thereof being supported by documentary evidence also.
2. This is a clear case of delay in registration of case after 25 days. The I.O. has registered the case only when the injured person died while the case has to be registered on the day of incident. The SHO has failed to supervise the I.O. and ensure registration of a case till the victim expired.
3. The SHO is not busy that he cannot ensure verification of trivial matters such as the one under discussion specially when a mans life has been lost and all stand to benefit except the actual victim.
4. As SHO, he should redefine what monitoring means and effectively supervise and control acts of his subordinates. The Inspector should reconsider as to why he has not even bothered to issue a memo to his HC for the act of insubordination. In my opinion it also suited him as SHO to abdicate himself from any responsibility so that when time for fixing responsibility came, he conveniently shifted the blame on his HC for the lapse which was actually brushed under the carpet for this anonymous complaint. The appellate authority on the same pleas taken by the applicant as mentioned above, while rejecting the appeal, observed as follows:
The pleas of the appellant are not convincing. Even though the complaint was anonymous but during the enquiry all the facts were corroborated. The appellant failed to monitor the action taken on the DD entry and MLC registers properly, which resulted deliberate delay on the part of IO. Had he asked the progress report on the DD entries from IO the case could have been registered much earlier but he took it in a routine manner. Merely checking DD entries and MLC register by the supervisory officer does not serve the purpose. He should rather guide the IO for further course of action to be taken in time. In case no complaint is received from the individual or family members it does not mean that police action was justified. As such, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter. The punishment imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority is maintained. The appeal is rejected.
4. We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. The basic plea raised by the applicant was that the injured was declared unfit by the doctor to make statement when the HC reached the hospital, and further that there was no complaint made by the injured, who in fact wanted no action to be taken in the matter, nor was there any complaint received from family members of the injured. It may be recalled that insofar as, the factum of the accident is concerned, the same, on information, came to be recorded in the concerned DD entries. The basic plea of the applicant as referred to above, has not been adverted to by the disciplinary authority at all. The appellate authority while rejecting the plea referred to above, mentioned, In case no complaint is received from the individual or family members it does not mean that police action was justified. In the fact situation as mentioned above, the question that arises is as to how an FIR could be recorded unless some details of the accident, like registration number of the offending vehicle, and its driver, if known, and negligence committed by him while causing the accident, were known through some source. Insofar as, the injured is concerned, he, at least on the day of the accident, was unfit to make a statement. He admittedly died in the hospital. The plea raised by the applicant that no complaint was received from the injured may show that the injured had regained consciousness and was able to make statement, even though no such material is available to hold so. Assuming that the injured, some time after the accident, had become fit to make statement, and did not himself want any action in the matter, nor was able to or prepared to disclose the way and manner the accident had taken place, nor even the number or description of the offending vehicle, how could an FIR be registered, which, as per standing orders issued by the respondents, copy whereof has been annexed with the Original Application, has to contain necessary details, such as name of the accused, names of witnesses etc. As regards hit and run accident cases, the instructions require full description and identification marks of driver and the vehicle, such as registration number, colour of the vehicle etc. Whereas, it may be true that on information of a cognizable offence, and indeed section 337 IPC is cognizable, an FIR has to be registered, but the same can be registered when the minimum details of the crime are known. We are not concerned in the present case as to whether the plea raised by the applicant that no information was coming forth either from the injured or his relations, is correct or not. We are only concerned with the fact that such a plea, which would have bearing upon the controversy in issue, ought to have been taken into consideration. As mentioned above, insofar as the disciplinary authority is concerned, it would not even refer to the aforesaid plea of the applicant, whereas the appellate authority rejected the same by simply observing that in case no complaint is received either from the individual or his family members, the same would not mean that the police action was justified. As to what should be the procedure to be adopted and how an FIR can be registered when the minimum details of the accused and the way and manner the crime has been committed is known, has not been clarified. We find from experience that when information of a cognizable offence is received, the police indeed would come into motion and record the factum of the crime, but an FIR, it prima facie appears to us, would come to be registered only when some details of the crime and the accused are known. This is an issue which should have been addressed by the concerned authorities in a proper manner, which, as mentioned above, has not been done.
5. For the reasons mentioned above, we set aside the orders dated 8.7.2009 and 3.11.2009 passed by the disciplinary and the appellate authorities respectively, and consequently allow the Original Application with liberty to the respondents to have a fresh look into the matter, and if so advised, pass a fresh order wherein the plea raised by the applicant, as mentioned above, shall be taken into consideration, and if the same is to be rejected, reasons therefor shall have to be recorded.
6. Before we may part with this order, we may mention that the counsel representing the respondents, has urged that in yet another case of similar kind, the applicant had been censured, and the OA filed by him in that behalf has been dismissed, would be of no meaning and consequence. In the case aforesaid, the patient was fit for making statement. The information received from PCR was that a truck loaded with iron rods hit a jhuggi in East Kidwai Nagar, wherein one person got injured who was admitted to Trauma Centre, AIIMS, by HC Ram Avtar of PCR. This DD entry was entrusted to HC Ranbir Singh who collected MLC of the injured. The injured was fit to make statement and the truck driver was also present in the hospital, but the IO did not register the case and filed the call vide DD entry dated 20.11.2008 on the pretext that the injured persons family members had settled the matter amicably with the truck driver after taking money from him. In the case aforesaid, the way and manner the accident had taken place was known and so much so, even the driver who caused the accident was also present in the hospital. In the circumstances, as mentioned above, FIR ought to have been registered, despite the fact that the parties had compromised, as surely, on information of cognizable offence, a case has to be registered, and whatever be its consequences, need not concern the police officer.
( L. K. Joshi ) ( V. K. Bali ) Vice-Chairman (A) Chairman /as/