Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Yogesh Kumar vs Comm. Of Police on 21 April, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1800/2021
Reserved on : 21.04.2025
Pronounced on: 14.05.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
Yogesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Om Prakash,
R/o C-32, Police Housing Project,
Sector 16B, Dwarka, New Delhi
Aged about 39 years
(Group - C)
(Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police) - Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Ajesh Luthra with Mr. Jatin Prashar)
VERSUS
1. Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police Hqrs. (New Building)
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi-110001
2. Joint Commissioner of Police,
Rashtrapati Bhawan (Sec.)
PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi
3. Deputy Commissioner of Police,
(RB), Delhi Police,
Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi - Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Archit Vasudeva)
2
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A):
By way of filing this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 30.07.2020 (Annexure A/1) and dated 20.11.2019 (Annexure A/2) along with the findings/Inquiry Report (Annexure A/3)
(b) Direct the respondents to accord all consequential benefits including monetary and seniority benefits.
(c) Award costs of the proceedings in favour of the applicant.
(d) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in favour of the applicant."
2. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the applicant, a fresh entrant into Police Force working as Sub Inspector, had arrested five antisocial elements, including one juvenile, on 29.01.2012 for certain offences. The applicant herein, a Sub Inspector, who had apprehended the juvenile on 29.01.2012 and was investigating this matter from 08.11.2011 up to 30.03.2013 when he was transferred out, did not file Police Investigation Report (PIR) against the juvenile with the Juvenile Justice Board within the stipulated period of 90 days of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016. A departmental enquiry was ordered to be conducted against the applicant vide order dated 11.10.2018, to enquire into the following charge: -
3
"CHARGE "I, ACP Dalip Kumar, Enquiry Officer charge you Sl Yogesh Kumar No. D-4528 (PIS No.28061470) that on 08/11/2011 a Case FIR no 557/11 dated 08/11/2011 u/s 452/365/323/506/34 IPC was registered at PS Uttam Nagar on the statement of Sh. Rakesh kumar S/o Sh. Mahender Singh R/o H.No. 60-D, Phase-1A, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. Therein he alleged that on 07.11.2011 at about 11.00 PM he and his nephew were standing outside of the house, meanwhile a boy namely Rajan who was driving his motor cycle very rashly and negligent manner in the street. Complainant stopped him and told him to drive carefully then Rajan has gone from there without speaking any word. After that on 08.11.2011 at about 12.30 AM Rajan came back with his two friends namely Babbal and Jony and knocked his house. When complainant opened his house then they started beating him and forcefully sit him in their Car and two more persons were also sitting in the car. They took him at the office of Swati property which is situated at Prem Nagar. All of the alleged persons had beaten him in the said office and after that they threw him out of the office and ran away from there. Complainant made a PCR Call and on his statement case FIR No. 557/2011 dated 08.11.2011 u/s 452/365/323/506/34 IPC PS Uttam Nagar was registered. During the course of investigation accused Jony, Himanshu, Pradeep and Sandeep @ babbal were arrested by you SI Yogesh kumar No. D-4528, PIS No. 28061470. JCL Rajan Sharma S/O Sh. Suraj Prakash Sharma R/O WZ-151, Om Vihar Phase-1, Uttam Nagar was also apprehended by you SI Yogesh Kumar but you did not file the police investigation report before the Juvenile Justice Board.
You Sl Yogesh Kumar apprehended the JCL on 29.01.12 and transferred from PS Uttam Nagar on 30.03.13 but you did not file the Police investigation report in the Hon'ble juvenile Justice Board within stipulated period under the terms of JJ Act and rules.
The above act on the part of you SI Yogesh kumar No. D- 4528,PIS No.28061470 amount to grave misconduct, negligence, dereliction in discharging of your official duties and unbecoming of a police officer in Delhi Police which renders you liable to be punished under the provisions of Delhi Police (punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980.
(Emphasis Supplied)"
3. The Inquiry Officer submitted his findings vide his report dated 12.06.2019 holding that the charge framed against the applicant is proved. This resulted in the Disciplinary Authority 4 (DA) passing the punishment order dated 20.11.2019 with the following punishment:-
"Assessing all the facts and circumstances of the case and seriousness of lapse and also agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, I, Vinit Kumar, Dy. Commissioner of Police, Rashtrapati Bhawan (Security), New Delhi hereby award a punishment of forfeiture of two years of approved service permanently, entailing reduction in his pay."
4. The applicant had filed an appeal dated 19.12.2019 against this order of the DA before the Appellate Authority (AA) and his appeal was rejected by the AA vide his order 30.07.2020. The applicant is aggrieved by the IO's report holding the charge as proved, resulting in the DA passing the punishment order and finally AA's order rejecting his appeal and has filed this OA, seeking the reliefs found in Para 1 of our order.
5. The main ground taken by the applicant's counsel during the course of his arguments is that this is not a 'misconduct' committed by the applicant which is the charge against the applicant. In support thereof, he is quoting the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. J. Ahmed, (1979)2 SCC 286, especially Paras 10 and 11 thereof which read as under:-
10. It would be appropriate at this stage to ascertain what generally constitutes misconduct, especially in the context of disciplinary proceedings entailing penalty.
11. Code of conduct as set out in the Conduct Rules clearly indicates the conduct expected of a member of the service. It would follow that that conduct which is blameworthy for the Government servant in the context of Conduct Rules would be misconduct. If a servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with due and faithful discharge of his duty in service, it is misconduct [see Pierce v.
Foster(1)]. A disregard of an essential condition of the 5 contract of service may constitute misconduct [see Laws v. London Chronicle .(Indicator Newspapers) (2)]. This view was adopted in Shardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari v. Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Nagpur Division, Nagpur(1), and Satubha K. Vaghela v. Moosa Raza(2). The High Court has noted the definition of misconduct in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary which runs as under:
"Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct".
In industrial jurisprudence amongst others, habitual or gross negligence constitute misconduct but in Management, Utkal Machinery Ltd. v. Workmen, Miss Shanti Patnaik(3), in the absence of standing orders governing the employee's undertaking, unsatisfactory work was treated as misconduct in the context of discharge being assailed as punitive. In S. Govinda Menon v. Unio nof India(4), the mamnner in which a member of the service discharged his quasi judicial function disclosing abuse of power was treated as constituting misconduct for initiating disciplinary proceedings. A single act of omission or error of judgment would ordinarily not constitute misconduct though if such error or omission results in serious or atrocious consequences the same may amount to misconduct as was held by this Court in P. H. Kalyani v. Air France, Calcutta(5), wherein it was found that the two mistakes committed by the employee while checking the load-sheets and balance charts would involve possible accident to the aircraft and possible loss of human life and, therefore, the negligence in work in the context of serious consequences was treated as misconduct. It is, however, difficult to believe that lack of efficiency or attainment of highest standards in discharge of duty attached to public office would ipso facto constitute misconduct. There may be negligence in performance of duty and a lapse in performance of duty or error of judgment in evaluating the developing situation may be negligence in discharge of duty but would not constitute misconduct unless the consequences directly attributable to negligence would be such as to be irreparable or the resultant damage would be so heavy that the degree of culpability would be very high. An error can be indicative of negligence and the degree of culpability may indicate the grossness of the negligence. Carelessness can often be productive of more harm than deliberate wickedness or malevolence. Leaving aside the classic example of the sentry who sleeps at his post and allows the enemy to slip through, there are other more familiar instances of which a railway cabinman signals in a train on the same track where there is a stationary train causing headlong collision; a nurse giving intravenous injection which ought to be given intramuscular causing 6 instantaneous death; a pilot overlooking an instrument showing snag in engine and the aircraft crashes causing heavy loss of life. Misplaced sympathy can be a great evil [see Navinchandra Shakerchand shah v. Manager, Ahmedabad Co- op. Department Stores Ltd.(1)]. But in any case, failure to attain the highest standard of efficiency in performance of duty permitting an inference of negligence would not constitute misconduct nor for the purpose of Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules as would indicate lack of devotion to duty."
6. The second ground taken by the learned counsel for the applicant is that juvenile was apprehended on 29.01.2012 and the charge-sheet was filed in the appropriate court only on 21.12.2017, leading to an inordinate delay of 5years, 11 months and 8 days. The applicant, while submitting his appeal before the AA, has brought to the notice of the AA that after his transfer on 30.13.2013, he handed over the case diaries to one SI Prem Raj and another SI Raj Pal, for completing this investigation and their delay is also enumerated in the appeal given by the applicant to the Appellate Authority as found in Para 14 (G) below. However, the Respondents have chosen not to take any action against SI Prem Raj and SI Rajpal and single out only the applicant.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contention of the applicant and reiterated what has already been stated by him in the counter/reply, particularly to the following paragraphs:
"4.5 to 4.8. ...It is submitted that the E.O. disciplinary authority as well as Appellate Authority has considered the facts of the case i.e. the admitted position that PIR was not filed within specified time, statements of all PWs, defence statement of the applicant as well as written representation of the applicant against the finding of the E.O. and other relevant documents, and awarded the punishment to the 7 applicant, in commensurate to his guilt as per the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal)rules, 1980. 4.9 to 4.19 ...It is submitted that disciplinary authority had observed that due to non-filing of PIR, the accused juvenile who was apprehended by the applicant got undue relief as he should have faced the law of land which the alleged juvenile did not, due to inaction by the applicant for the reasons best known to him. As direct PSI, the applicant can't take this plea as that of ignorance of law and rules. It was the duty of the applicant to file the Police Investigation Report, after apprehending the juvenile but he did not do so even after passage of 14 months. The Applicant herein also did not ask the SHO/ other officials as to what has to be done if he was not aware as is being alleged. The submission of the applicant in rest of the para is irrelevant with regard to the instant DE. The applicant cannot shirk his responsibilities upon others. It has been proved by the EO that pleas advanced by the applicant during proceedings, carries no weight in view of the documents and record as well deposition of PWs. The applicant remained highly negligent, careless and had shown unprofessionalism as well as lackadaisical approach towards discharging of his very important official duties as the accused juvenile who was apprehended by him, got undue relief due to inaction by the applicant. Besides, if the applicant had any kind of difficulties in conducting the investigation of the said case, being fresher, he should have brought the same in the notice of senior officers but he did not do so. The applicant did not submit any documentary evidence before the disciplinary authority to corroborate his version, as stated in these para. Hence, the disciplinary authority has passed penalty order against the applicant for his gross negligence, carelessness, unprofessionalism approach, in the discharge of his official duties which is just legal and fair."
8. Learned counsel for the respondents adds that it is only the applicant who was continuously occupying the position as an IO for more than 60 days to be able to complete the investigation within the time stipulated in Rule 10(6) of It is also observed that the respondents of the rank of DCP/ACP and SHO are not shouldering their duties of supervision and maintenance of case diaries as stipulated in the Standing Order No.68 and rather put onus on the junior officer like applicant for their lapse in the 8 matters of juvenile. Such practice followed by superiors of Delhi Police is also deprecated..
9. We have given a patient hearing to both sides and with their assistance, carefully gone through the records.
10. We tend to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant to the effect that the inaction on the part of the applicant in not filing the PIR within the stipulated time of 90, cannot be construed as a 'misconduct'. The reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J. Ahmed (supra) as quoted in Para 5 of this order is relevant in this context. It cannot be said that inaction on the part of the applicant in not filing the PIR within the stipulated time arises from ill motive. At best, inaction on the part of the applicant can be construed only as a negligence or an error of judgment or an innocent mistake all of which do not construe such misconduct as opined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J. Ahmad (supra).
11. During the course of hearing on 29.01.2025, the Tribunal had passed the following orders:-
"4. We have not been able to find from the pleadings before us as to what is the time frame for filing of the relevant report in the matter. It is also not found as to whether to ensure timely filing of such report(s) only the I.O. is responsible and/or other assisting or supervisory authority is also responsible.
5. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the respondents seeks a short adjournment in order to enable him to take instructions qua (i) What is the time frame for filing of the investigation report before the Juvenile Justice Board and also the details thereof that the time frame is from the date of registration of the FIR or the apprehension of the accused juvenile, etc., (ii) The Officer(s) responsible to 9 ensure filing of the investigation report before the learned Juvenile Justice Board in time bound manner, (iii) In the present case, as to whether any action has been taken against any other officer(s)."
12. In response to our above order, the respondents shared with us a copy of Police Standing Order No.68 enumerating the "Duties of the Police under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children's rules 2007). The said Standing Order No.68 in Para 24 under the heading "Miscellaneous " stipulates that all Police Stations shall have 2 or 3 officers designates as Juvenile Welfare Officer who should have undergone a training course in handling juvenile in conflict with Law.
13. The applicant has clearly stated that he was not detailed as a Juvenile Officer at PS Udham Nagar. The Standing Order No.68 stipulates that all Police Stations shall have 2 or 3 officers designated as Juvenile Welfare Officer who should have undergone a training course in handling juvenile in conflict with Law and if so, what action was taken against such Juvenile Officers . It is not known from the reply of the respondents whether such Juvenile Officers were appointed in the said police station and whether such a Juvenile Officer had attended any training course in handling Juvenile in conflict with law, and, if so, what action was taken against such Juvenile Officers. The contentions raised in Para 14 (G) have also not been addressed properly by the appellate authority in its order dated 30.07.2020. It is strange that despite superior police officers holding monthly review meetings, this 10 matter regarding in action on the part of the applicant in filing the PIR in a timely manner has not come to light and in this whole process the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act regarding bringing the JCL to justice in timely manner has not been fulfilled.
14. While perusing the records, we found that the applicant had taken the following grounds in his appeal dated 18.12.2019 against the findings in departmental inquiry:-
A. First of all, I wish to submit very humbly that I was a totally raw hand for the investigation of such heinous cases viz. registered U/s 452/365/323/506/34 IPC Vide FIR No.557/2011. This was a case which should have been entrusted to most experienced investigating officer of the police station as it contained section 365/452 IPC. Besides, since a juvenile was also involved in the case, as such it was incumbent on the part of the then S.H.O. P.S. Uttam Nagar, to have marked the investigation to some senior officer. But, the same was handed over to me inspite of the fact that I had recently completed my training period and a fresher in the police station and was at the stage of learning police practical work.
B. That the fact remains that the cases of molestation, rape, of juveniles registered under POCSO Act, are generally marked to those officers who have been imparted training and specialized for the investigation of such cases. I was not at all given training to handle such cases and that remained the reason that till the investigation of this case remained with me, the PIR could not be filed before the J.J. Board. Moreover, it is also a matter of record that no standing order or circular order which contained instructions for dealing with the cases of juveniles was ever got noted from me in the police station. Moreover, all the officers and men including S.H.O. are so busy in their work that they hardly get time to guide the fresher. This is what has happened in my case.
C. That during the investigation of the case FIR No. 557/2011, P.S. Uttam Nagar which was registered on 08.11.2011 and I succeeded in effecting the arrest of Accused person namely Johny, Himanshu, Pradeep and Sandeep @ Bablu. However, Rajan Sharma S/o Sh. Suraj Prakash Sharma R/o WZ-151, Om Vihar, Phase-I, Uttam Nagar, Delhi (Juvenile in Conflict with Law) was also apprehended by me on 29.01.2012. Thereafter, investigation remained with me but I was transferred 11 from P.S. Uttam Nagar on 30.3.2013. By that time, the PIR could not be filed because of reason that I was a new the comer in the department and moreover, none guided me that PIR was to be filed within some stipulated period.
D. That I will not hesitate to submit further that half yearly formal inspections of the police station are conducted by the GOs under the orders of DCP/ Addl. C.P./ Jt. C.P. concerned. No doubt during the period from 08.11.2011 to 31.03.2013, at least 2/3 formal inspections of the police station must have been conducted by the GO. As per the standing instructions, regarding inspection of the police stations, the special stress is laid on the reasons of pendency of the cases and inquests. Besides, every police sends weekly, fortnightly, monthly, quarterly, half yearly and yearly diaries relating to the pendency of the cases and inquests with reasons of their pendency, under the signature of the concerned S.H.O. and ACP. These are discussed in the crime review meetings by the senior 'officers. Had there been any negligence or carelessness or delay in filing the PIR before the J.J. Board, then the same would have been pointed out by the senior officers after discussions in the meetings and I would have been questioned. In the absence of above, I cannot be taken to task in any way. Moreover, no show cause notice, explanation, reprimand or advisory memo was ever issued to me either by S.H.O. or by A.C.P. So much so, the crime register which is maintained by the S.H.O. always contains the details of the case diaries submitted by the IOs relating to each case. Since I have been submitting my case diaries regularly and timely and as such no objection was ever raised by the S.H.O. Moreover, it was for the S.H.O., to have guided me after the inspection of the case file in question to file PIR before J.J. Board in time. As such, I was not at fault.
Ε. That it is pertinent to mention here that I investigated the case from 08.11.2011 and finally handed over the case file in the record room on 30.03.2013. It was in the knowledge of the then SHOS that I was a new I.Ο. gaining experience in the field of investigation and they also did cast any aspersion on my conduct. The fact cannot be denied that I had been trying to get guidance from the SHOS during that period, So that I could finalise the investigation of other cases including this one, but it was never told to me that there were some instructions under which cases relating to juveniles have to be filed within some time frame. Moreover, this was the first case of juvenile which was received by me for investigation. 12 Moreover, till my transfer no objection was raised by the SHOs or other senior officials because the present status of the case was often discussed in the regular meetings. F. That till date no court has raised any objection or commented adversely inspite of the fact that charge sheet relating to the other three accused persons was ordered to be put in Court on 30.10.2017 and finally put in the Court for trial on 21.12.2017.
G. That here I am enclosing herewith a copy of the Index to the FIR No. 557/2011, P.S. Uttam Nagar wherein details of the investigation conducted by different IOs has been mentioned. As I was transferred on 30.03.2013, the investigation of this case was handed over to S.I. Prem Raj on 25.05.2013 as per CD No.26. This indicates that even after my transfer it took about 2 months to further handover the investigation to the other IO. In all S.I. Prem Raj wrote six case diaries dated 25.05.2013, 19.03.2014, 07.12.2014, 19.03.2015, 05.08.2015 and 05.03.2016. From the index and after perusal of the details of the case diaries submitted by S.I. Prem Raj, it may be seen that after submitting case diary No. 26, he submitted case diary No.27 on 19.03.2014 i.e. after a lapse of about one year. Thereafter, he submitted CD No. 28 on 07.12.2014, which is again after a gap of 8 months. And further he submitted case diary after more than 3 months, then after 5 months and CD No. 31 after a gap of 7 months. This clearly indicates that no investigation was conducted by him during the period from 25.05.2013 to 05.03.2016 for almost about 3 years. It is surprising to find that no officer / S.H.O. or ACP ever raised any question about the pendency of this case with this IO. Had any of these officers taken small care then investigation of the case could be finalized well within the time frame and such initiation of a DE against me could have been averted. H. That again I am compelled to submit here that even after S.I. Prem Raj, the next IO S.I. Raj Pal also did not take any pains to file PIR before J.J. Board. Even the earlier I.O. S.I. Prem Raj also did not take any steps in the same regard. S.I. Raj Pal was handed over investigation on 22.06.2016, which shows that he wrote the first case diary of receiving the case file and thereafter, next CD No. 32 was submitted by him on 20.06.2017, which is very shocking and astonishing that during a period of complete one year, he submitted only 13 one case diary. This shows that neither proper supervision was carried out by the then SHO nor S.I. Raj Pal took any steps to ensure that case is finalized. Had SI Prem Raj and S.I. Rajpal been sincere in their working and being the experienced IOs they could file the PIR before the J.J. Board. However, it is a matter of record that till date PIR in the said case has not been filed by P.S. Uttam Nagar, before the JJ Board, which is a matter of great concern. It shows that there is grave lack of supervision on the part of the concerned S.H.Os., who could not even find out that even after a lapse of six years, the PIR is still pending.
I. That it is also pointed out here that even in the D- Course I was investigating more than 50 cases at a time besides more than 50 inquest files which were to be disposed off were marked to me. It may be seen here that even during the training period, I was kept over burdened knowing well that I was not an experienced IO and a fresher one.
J. It may be seen that half yearly formal inspections of the police are conducted but during the period from 2011 till 2017 no such objections relating to this case was ever raised by the inspecting GO. So had some adverse comments, being raised by the inspecting officers then the matter could have been sorted out then and there. In totality of the facts it is submitted that I never committed any misconduct or showed any negligence or dereliction in the discharge of my official duties at any point of time.
Κ. That in the matter of Ratan Lal Sharma V/s Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram Co-Education Hr. Sec. School, Air, 1993, SC 2155, it was held as under:-
"It was in the sense that it was often said that justice must not only be done but must always appear to be done."
L. That also in the case of Union of India V/s H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364, it was held that:-
"But nevertheless, the principles that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished."14
M. That Para 14.2 of Vigilance Manual, Chapter X, Vol. I, Govt. of India, which explain about the charge as under:
"Para 14.2 - A charge may be described as the prima-facie proven essence of an allegation setting out the nature of accusation in general terms, such as negligence in the performance of official duties, inefficiency, acceptance of sub standard work, false measurement of the work executed, execution of work below specification, breach of conduct rules. Etc. A charge should briefly, clearly and precisely identify the misconduct/misbehavior. It should also give time, place and persons or things involved so that the public servant concerned has clear notice of his involvement."
15. We find that instead of addressing these grounds one by one in detail, the Appellate Authority has casually dismissed the same in his order dated 20.07.2020:-
"During the course of investigation of the said case, accused Jony, Himanshu, Pradeep and Sandeep @ Babbal were arrested by the appellant. JCL Rajan Sharma, S/o. Sh. Suraj Prakash Sharma R/o. WZ- 151, Om Vihar Phase-1, Uttam Nagar was also apprehended by the appellant on 29.01.2012 but he did not file the police investigation report before the Juvenile Justice Board. He apprehended the JCL on 29.01.12 whereas he was transferred from PS Uttam Nagar on 30.03.13. But he did not file the PIR within the stipulated period under the terms of JJ Act and Rules.
The DE was initially entrusted to Shri Raman Lamba ACP/Punjabi Bagh who was served the SOA upon the appellant on 18.12.2018. Consequent upon the transfer of said E.O, the DE was entrusted Sh. Kumar Abhishek, ACP/Punjabi Bagh, vide order No. 1060- 61/HAP(P-I)/W dated 21.01.2019. Later on the transfer of the appellant to R.P. Bhawan the DE file was transferred to this Unit from West District and marked to Sh. Dilip Kumar ACP/Line/RB vide order dated 03.05.2019. Statements of all the 03 PWs were recorded by the EO in the presence of the appellant. The charge was served upon the appellant on 01.06.19. In response to the charge, the appellant did not produce any DW in his defence. He submitted his written defence statement to the EO who submitted 15 his findings concluding that the Charge levelled against appellant Yogesh Kumar No. D-4528, is proved. The copy of finding was served upon the appellant dated 20.06.2019. The appellant submitted his representation on 18.07.2019 vide which he mainly stated that he was raw hand in investigation of such type of serious case including sections like 452/365 and other section of IPC because he had then completed his D-Course. He had investigated the said case from 08.11.2011 and finally handed over the case file in Record Room on 30.03.2013. He was never told that there were some instructions under which cases relating to juveniles have to be filed within time framed. Had there been any such order or instructions then he would have immediately taken up the matter for filing PIR before JJB. The Hon'ble Court has not raised any objection inspite of the fact that charge- sheet relating to the other three accused persons was ordered to be put in court on 30.10.2017 and finally put in the court for trial on 21.12.2017. On his transfer, the investigation of the said case was handed over to SI Prem Raj on 25.05.2013 who submitted the case diary after a long time and no officer raised any question about the pendency of this case. The next IO/SI Raj Pal also did not take any pain to file PIR before JJ Board and submitted only one case diary during a period of complete one year and still no PIR has been filed before the JJB and none except him was asked to explain the reasons for keeping the case pending for more than 06 years and whereas he was kept overburdened knowing well that he was not an experienced IO and a fresher one. Besides, he was not detailed as a Juvenile Officer in PS Uttam Nagar. Some other officials was detailed to handle the cases of juveniles etc. The disciplinary authority had carefully gone through the written as well as oral submission of the appellant alongwith evidence on record. The appellant took plea before the disciplinary authority that this being his initial case after training and due to work load in PS Uttam Nagar at that time, he could not file the PIR which was not found tenable, as due to non-filing of PIR, the accused juvenile who was apprehended by him got undue relief as he should have faced the law of land which the alleged juvenile did not, due to inaction by the appellant for the reasons best known to him. As a direct PSI, he can't take this plea as that of ignorance of law and rules. It was his duty to file the Police Investigation Report after apprehending the juvenile but he did not do so even after a lapse of passage of 14 months.16
On finalization of DE, the disciplinary authority awarded the punishment of forfeiture of two years of approved service, permanently, entailing reduction in his pay to the appellant vide Order No. 2135- 51/HAP/DCP/RB dated 20.11.2019. The appellant received the copy of penalty order on 21.11.2019 and filed the appeal on 19.12.2019 mainly pleading therein he was raw hand/new comer in the investigation of heinous cases. This case should have been entrusted to most experience IOs. He was also not trained to handle such case and that is why the PIR of juvenile could not be filed before JJB. Beside, no standing order and circular in the subject matter was ever got noted from him. The senior officers never pointed out/discussed him about the delay in filling PIR. He was kept over burdened due to more than 50 inquest files.
I have gone through the content of the appeal, the punishment file and other relevant papers available on record. In the interest of fair and natural justice the appellant was also heard by the undersigned on 23.07.2020. The plea advanced as well as oral submission by the appellant is not found satisfactory. He should have filed PIR within specified period and in all circumstances but he failed to do so. He has no plausible defence to counter the charge leveled upon him.
Keeping in view of above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any genuine grounds to interfere with the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, the appeal of SI Yogesh Kumar No.D-4528 is hereby rejected."
16. From the above, it is clear that the appeal of the applicant has been rejected by the respondents without taking into consideration the grounds raised in his representation and in appeal as well. The order in appeal was passed without application of mind and has completely glossed over the grounds taken by the applicant in his appeal, with the view to affirm the disciplinary authority's order.
17. It is also seen from the Standing Order No.68 wherein it is clearly mentioned in Para 24 under heading "Miscellaneous" that 17 DCP, ACP and SHO shall personally ensure compliance of the SO. It is also mentioned in Para 15 "Period of completion of Investigation of Cases" of the said SO No. 68 that the charge sheet in respect of juvenile be filed within 90 days where the juvenile is on bail and as per provision of Section-167 of Cr.P.C. where the juvenile is remanded to observation home. In this case, the applicant is only an IO whereas it is the responsibility of the SHO concerned to supervise and maintain the case diaries. It is also clear from the record that the applicant was transferred on 30.03.2013, and the investigation of the case was handed over to SI Prem Raj on 25.05.2013 which continued up to 05.03.2016. It is, thus, clear that the after the transfer of the applicant, it is the duty of the SHO to get the investigation completed by the next IO Sh. Prem Raj. However, he has not followed the guidelines contained in the SO No. 68 as mentioned above. It is also observed that the respondents of the rank of DCP/ACP and SHO are not shouldering their duties of supervision and maintenance of case diaries as stipulated in the Standing Order No.68 and rather put onus on the junior officer like applicant for their lapse in the matters of juvenile. Such practice followed by superiors of Delhi Police is also deprecated.
18. It is seen that the charge of misconduct against the applicant is only one of the charges and other charges against him are: (i) negligence; (ii) dereliction to his official duties; and (iii) unbecoming of a Police Officer in Delhi Police. Therefore, even if he is to be exonerated from the charge of misconduct, it s a fact that 18 he could have charged for any one or all the three of the above charges. The defence taken by the applicant against the charges that had he known or had he been tutored/monitored by superior officers, he would have completed investigation and submitted PIR within the stipulated period of 90 days of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016. For a duty conscious well trained Police Officer, even if there is time limit of 90 days as prescribed in Juvenile Justice Rules, and if he were to deal with non juvenile unlike the present case, would he continue with this investigation indefinitely and leave his station on transfer after three years without filing PIR. Therefore, the conduct of the applicant is not entirely un-blemished worthy.
19. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we allow the OA partly with the following directions:-
(i) Quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 30.07.2020 (Annexure A/1) and dated 20.11.2019 (Annexure A/2) along with the findings/Inquiry Report (Annexure A/3);
(ii) The respondents are also directed to accord all consequential benefits, including monetary and seniority benefits.
(iii) The respondents shall be at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant in accordance with law, however, in the event of doing so, the respondents shall wish to take disciplinary action against other officers who are directly or indirectly 19 involved in the matter for supervisory lapses and contributory negligence.
(iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondents, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
(B.Anand) (R.N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /lg/