Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vikram Singh S/O Vijay Singh vs Commissioner Of Police on 24 January, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.1939 of 2011 Reserved on : 20th January, 2012 Date of decision : 24th January, 2012 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Vikram Singh S/o Vijay Singh, R/o C 203, HIG Jhulelal Apartments, Road No.44, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034. Applicant ( By Shri H. S. Dahiya with Ms. Anita Sharma, Advocate ) Versus Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters, IP Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. Respondent ( By Ms. Sumedha Sharma, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Vikram Singh, an Inspector in Delhi Police, the applicant herein, sequel to a joint departmental enquiry held against him along with SI Prabhat Kumar and MC Madan Lal, has since been inflicted the punishment of censure, vide order dated 30.10.2009. The appeal preferred by him against the order aforesaid has since been rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 20.05.2010. These are the orders which are under challenge in this Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. We may mention at the very outset that we are informed during the course of hearing that insofar as HC Madan Lal is concerned, he has been exonerated, whereas SI Prabhat Kumar, who was visited with the same penalty as that of the applicant, has not chosen to challenge the order passed against him. In view of the limited controversy that may need adjudication by us, there would be no need to give facts in all their minute details. Suffice it may, however, to mention that as required under the rules, the enquiry officer, after recording evidence of all the PWs, framed charge against the applicant and others. The charge so framed reads, thus:
I, Atul Katyar, Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, North Distt. (Enquiry Officer) charge you, Inspr. Vikram Singh No. D-I/1018 (the then SHO Sarai Rohilla), SI Prabhat Kumar Sharma No. 1310/D & HC Madan Lal No. 408/N that one Shri Narender Singh Yadav r/o Plot No.165, Pocket-4, Sector-2, Rohini, Delhi was running a travel agency in the name Vidhata Travels for last 12 years in a rented room of the first floor of House No.F-118, East Moti Bagh, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi-7, which is owned by Parmeshwar Sharma, a handicap, who is running a STD booth on the ground floor of the said house. There was a dispute between tenant and landlord over vacating the said premises. As per version of Sh. Narender Singh Yadav (complainant), in the night of 16.1.2006, Parmeshwar Sharma, owner of the house along with his fellow men kept his employee Shri Chand Ram Dahiya restrained whole night and removed his articles and records from the rented office. The stairs were also removed. The matter was reported to the local police of PS Sarai Rohilla vide DD No.6-A but SI Prabhat Kumar Sharma, Division Officer, who was also enquiring the complaint of Sh. Parmeswhar Sharma, did not take any action. The complaint alleged that SI Prabhat Sharma tried to influence him to make Parmeshwar Sharma, a partner in his business. Parmeshwar Sharma, owner of the premises had also given a complaint on 12.1.2006 which was received vide DD No.39A and marked to HC Madan Lal for further necessary action and report. In this complaint Pameshwar Sharma has admitted that he is having dispute with his tenant, though some one has struck off the word tenant and some one else has written, DOST in Hindi most probably afterwards. This application also clearly shows that Narender Singh Yadav is tenant and one room of the premises is under his possession, which was strengthened by the MTNL bill presented by him.
During the course of enquiry conducted on the complaint of Shri Narender Singh Yadav, it was revealed that DD No.6-A is still pending as per the PCR register of PS Sarai Rohilla. It is also strange that no medical examination/statement of Sh. Chand Ram Dahiya, employee/manager of Narender Singh Yadav, who is an eye witness as well as the injured, is on record and any enquiry officer did not consider the same so far. It is also strange that continuous quarrel/tension was going on between both the parties but still the local police of PS Sarai Rohilla took no preventive action till 08/03/2006. It is also surprising that on 17/01/2006, the landlord gave in writing that he has asked the complainant to vacate the premises in question and on his denial, he put up his lock though the lock of Narender was already there, and still the local police remained mum.
Later on Sh. Narender Singh Yadav filed a complaint in the Court of CMM, Delhi u/s 156(3) Cr.PC for registration of a criminal case. You, SI Prabhat Sharma filed a report in the concerned court on the date fixed where you admitted that there was a dispute between the parties regarding tenancy of the complainant. You, SI Prabhat Kumar Sharma further submitted that Narender Singh Yadav was using the office in question. This report was filed in the concerned court without getting the same forwarded by the SHO for the reasons best known to you, SI Prabhat Sharma, which creates doubts. The conduct & working of police officials of PS Sarai Rohilla i.e. you, Inspr. Vikram Singh, the then SHO Sarai Rohilla, SI Prabhat Sharma and HC Madan Lal, in this matter is not as per procedure of law and suspicious and it seems that Sh. Narender Singh Yadav was dispossessed from the above said premises by the landlord with connivance of above said police officials.
The above act of omission and commission on the part of you, Inspr. Vikram Singh No.D-I/1018 (the then SHO Sarai Rohilla), SI Prabhat Kumar Sharma No.1310/D & HC Madan Lal No.408/N amounts to gross misconduct, negligence, misuse of official powers and dereliction in the discharge of their official duties, which renders you liable for punishment under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. The enquiry officer in his report held the main charge as not proved. The applicant was held guilty only of the charge of not taking preventive action against the parties till 08.03.2006. The conclusion drawn by the enquiry officer reads, thus:
In the light of above discussion, the charge in connection with inaction/connivance of the delinquent police personnel regarding dispossession of Sh. Narender Singh Yadav from his tenant premises, detaining of his employee Sh. Chand Ram Dhiya by landlord Sh. Parmeshwar Sharma etc. leveled against Inspr. Vikram Singh No.D-I/1018, SI Prabhat Kumar Sharma No.1310/D & HC Madan Lal No.408/N (now 238/N) is not proved. However, the charge of not taking preventing action against the parties till 08.03.2006 by the delinquent police personnel is fully substantiated. To the extent the charge stood proved by the enquiry officer, the applicant made a representation mentioning therein that when the parties themselves did not sought any action, and rather required the police to wait, as they were likely to reach a compromise, there was no question of taking any preventive action, and the same was thus initiated when only the main occurrence took place. This plea raised by the applicant has been rejected by the disciplinary authority by observing as follows:
Regarding preventive action not taken by local police, the delinquents have stated that both the parties had requested, in writing, to give them some time to sort out their dispute and not to intervene/take action in the matter. They have further stated that the complainants subsequently compromised and resolved their differences. This plea of the delinquent officers is not tenable in view of the fact that Narender Singh also submitted a complaint to CP, Delhi on 21.01.2006 and Jt. CP/NR on 10.02.06 respectively. It is also a matter of record that a PCR call was lodged by Narender Singh Yadav on 17.01.2006. He also complained against his landlord Parmeshwar Sharma, PW-3 with the local police on 17.01.2006 and another complaint in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Delhi on 19.01.2006 regarding inaction by local police on his complaints. SI Prabhat Kumar was assigned the task of enquiry into the complaint and the PCR call was also handed over to him for further necessary action. But no preventive action was taken till 08.03.2006. The plea submitted by the delinquents that preventive action u/s 107/150 Cr.PC was taken at the appropriate time is not justified as the local police was regularly receiving complaints and PCR calls from both the parties which called for appropriate timely preventive action. Insofar as, the appellate authority is concerned, it would only narrate the facts of the case, the points raised by the applicant, and without dealing with any of the points, even though mentioned in the impugned order, would summarily rejected the appeal, without recording any reasons. Relevant part of the order passed by the appellate authority reads as follows:
I have carefully considered the appeal in the light of fact and circumstances of the case and materials available on record. I have also heard him in O.R. The allegations on which the enquiry was being conducted was serious in nature and the SHO had no business not to keep track of action being taken by officers of the PS in the matter. After careful consideration, I see no reason to interfere the punishment by the disciplinary authority. The appeal, therefore, is rejected.
3. Normally, we would have allowed the present OA, and while setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority, directed it to deal with the points raised by the applicant in his appeal, and to give its opinion by recording reasons. However, in the context of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that it would be an exercise in futility. The plea raised by the applicant that there was no question of taking preventive action till such time the cross security proceedings came to be initiated against the parties on 08.03.2006, as the parties themselves were contemplating a compromise, is supported by the evidence of the witnesses examined by none other than the prosecution, and the concerned authorities would not even take the said plea into consideration. Narender Singh Yadav, examined as PW-2, stated that he was running his travel agency from the premises in question for about 13-14 years, and that the said premises belonged to Parmeshwar Sharma, who was running an STD booth from the ground floor. He stated that there was minor altercation/dispute between him and the landlord, due to which he submitted a complaint to senior police officers, but after some time they compromised the matter amicably and that they were residing peacefully. Parmeshwar Sharma, examined as PW-3, stated that he gave the first floor of his house to Narender Singh Yadav 13-14 years ago, from where Narender Singh Yadav was running a travel agency in the name of Vidhata Travel Agency, and that there was minor altercation/dispute between him and the tenant, due to which they had to approach the local police, where they met the SHO and other concerned officials, and after the meeting, both parties requested to give some time to settle the matter between themselves. He further stated that after some time, they compromised the matter amicably. We may not refer to statements made by other witnesses. When both the contesting parties, i.e., the landlord and the tenant, themselves stated that they had requested the SHO not to proceed further in the matter as they were trying to settle the issue amicably, there was no question for the police to take preventive action. Surely and admittedly, as and when the main occurrence took place, preventive action was taken.
4. Before we may part with this order, we may mention that despite the fact that censure may appear to be a minor punishment prescribed under rules, it is often seen that the same turns out as stumbling block in a big way in the matter of promotion of an officer in Delhi Police. Even though, there are instructions to state that unless the censures may be on the allegations of corruption and moral turpitude, the same may not be taken into consideration in case of promotion, but the law that has evolved is that overall service record of an officer is relevant for the purpose of his promotion. That being so, while proposing to visit a police officer with the penalty of censure, the concerned authority is to give serious thought.
5. In view of the discussion made above, we allow the present Original Application. Orders dated 30.10.2009 and 20.05.2010 passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities, respectively, are quashed and set aside. The applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits that he may be entitled to consequent upon setting aside of the orders aforesaid. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/