Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ishwari Prasad vs Comm. Of Police on 7 July, 2021
1
O.A. No. 3896/2018 &
O.A. No. 3908/2018
Item No.22 & 23
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.3896/2018
with
O.A. no. 3908/2018
Today, this the 7th day of July, 2021
(Through Video Conferencing)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Ms. Aradhana Johri, Member (A)
O.A. No.3896/2018
Shrichand,
Aged about 50 years,
R/o G - 3, Sec. 6/67,
Vaishali, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh - 201010
... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. M.D. Jangra for Mr. Suresh Sharma)
Versus
Commissioner of Police & Ors. Through
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police HQ, IP Estate,
New Delhi.
2. The Spl. Commissioner of Police,
Legal Cell, PHQ,
IP Estate, New Delhi.
3. The Jt. Commissioner of Police,
Genl. ADMN., New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Esha Mazumdar)
2
O.A. No. 3896/2018 &
O.A. No. 3908/2018
Item No.22 & 23
O.A. No.3908/2018
Ishwari Prasad (Serving as Sub-Inspector),
Aged about 46 years,
R/o C-44/147, Gamri Ext., Sudamapuri - II,
Delhi - 110053
... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. M.D. Jangra for Mr. Suresh Sharma)
Versus
Commissioner of Police & Ors. Through
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police HQ, IP Estate,
New Delhi.
2. The Spl. Commissioner of Police,
Legal Cell, PHQ,
IP Estate, New Delhi.
3. The Jt. Commissioner of Police,
Genl. ADMN., New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Esha Mazumdar)
ORDER (ORAL)
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy:
Though a request for adjournment was made, we reject the request. The reason is that the applicant himself filed MA No. 471/2021 with a prayer to advance the date of hearing of the OA. Acceding to his request, MA was allowed on 17.02.2021` and the OA was directed to be listed on 3 O.A. No. 3896/2018 & O.A. No. 3908/2018 Item No.22 & 23 01.04.2021. On that date, the applicant made a request for adjournment and the OA posted to 05.04.2021. Once again, similar request was made by Mr. M.D. Jangra appearing for Mr. Suresh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and it was adjourned to the next date. On 06.04.2021, a request was made by the applicant for adjournment. We made a clear observation to the effect that learned counsel for the applicant is not prepared to argue the case. However, a final chance was given and it was directed to be listed on 12.05.2021. On that date also, the request was made and it was directed to be listed for today. The same request is made today also.
2. For all practical purposes, the learned counsel for the applicant has taken this Tribunal for a ride. At a time when people are struggling to get their case listed due to the pandemic, he has grossly misused the facility and opportunity given to him. On each occasion, the file need to be read by the Members of the Bench as well as by the learned counsel for the respondents. The posting of the cases cannot be a matter of course.
3. The applicants in these two OAs were working as Sub Inspectors in Police Station (PS) Karawal Nagar, Delhi. On 4 O.A. No. 3896/2018 & O.A. No. 3908/2018 Item No.22 & 23 26.04.2014, a woman by name Ms. Somwati,w/o Late Ratan Singh went to the PS and submitted a complaint stating that her daughter was forcibly taken away on 05.04.2014 by two of her neighbors, by name Sudhir Tyagi and his tenant Brij Bhati and they tried to outrage her modesty and threatened her, of life. She stated that when the matter was reported to the police on 14.04.2014, just her thumb impression was taken forcefully on a blank paper and no further steps were taken.
4. On the basis of the complaint against the applicants, and other developments, the department conducted the inquiry. It was revealed that the girl was subjected to kidnap and gang rape and out of fear, she did not disclose it immediately, and informed her mother later on. It was also mentioned that though the applicants have subjected the girl to medical examination, they failed to incorporate the provision of Section - 376 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and only confined the case to Section 354 of IPC. Further allegation was that the applicants did not take the proactive steps such as taking the help of a woman officer.
5. The matter was entrusted to the DCP for inquiry vide order dated 18.02.2015. During the course of the inquiry, 11 5 O.A. No. 3896/2018 & O.A. No. 3908/2018 Item No.22 & 23 witnesses were examined. On finding a prima facie case, the applicants were issued a charge memo dated 05.04.2015. The Inquiry Officer (IO) submitted his report duly taking into account, the request made before him and holding the charges against the applicants as proved. The Disciplinary Authority passed a common order dated 29.08.2016 imposing the punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of one year, against the applicants herein. The appeal preferred against the said order was rejected on 31.10.2017. In these OAs, the applicants challenge the order of punishment as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority (AA).
6. We perused the records in the presence of Mr. M. D. Jangra representing Mr. Suresh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and heard Ms. Esha Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondents.
7. A bare perusal of the Charge memo and the impugned order discloses clear omission if not indiscipline, on the part of the applicants in taking adequate steps when a serious crime of gang rape was brought to their notice. Whatever may have been their impression at the initial stage of the case, at least when victim revealed that she was 6 O.A. No. 3896/2018 & O.A. No. 3908/2018 Item No.22 & 23 subjected to gang rape and they got her medically tested, the relevant Section of the IPC ought to have been incorporated. Even the steps, taken by the applicants after the result of the medical examination were far from satisfactory and they clearly reflected the gross incapacity or indiscipline with respect to a sensitive issue.
8. In accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, the respondents have examined as many as 11 witnesses before the charge as such, was framed against the applicants. Copies thereof were made available to the applicants also. On their part, the applicants have examined some witnesses. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that every step was meticulously strictly followed, and the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law. The applicants are not able to point out any deviation or violation. Further, compared to the nature of allegations made and proved against the applicants, the quantum of punishment can be said to be a bit low.
7
O.A. No. 3896/2018 & O.A. No. 3908/2018 Item No.22 & 23
9. We do not find any merit in the OAs. They are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Aradhana Johri) ( Justice L. Narasimha Reddy )
Member (A) Chairman
/lg/jyoti/ankit/dd/