Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
J Arun Anand Raj vs Police on 18 July, 2019
7'* 1 )! CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL' KOLKATA BENCH (CIRCUIT AT PORT BLAIR) i f-
Date of Order: I ^ ^ ■ I
O.A No. 140/AN/2013
Present: Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. N. Neihsial, Administrative Member ■?
I J.Arun Anand Raj, j.
S/o Shri M.James Raj, R/o Supply Lane, Port Blair, South Andaman, Pin-744101.
1. Union ^dia:
Sei^icel^mug M^nisjrylf Ho / Ne|felhi -
■a
i /
2. £ Th^pirectorf&nBraPo#PMM^l#^ I Andaman & ^ "
P#eiair-74^^f|1 5i v ■Jf ^
3. \ TfeeJ)eputy Inspit^r Openera|of|PolkeMQ), ■ \Andaman & Ni€-oj3a^^licJil[ , { \ / J %7% (-
%
'%
% \ '
% --------- •-------- <?\
:f
2 For the Appfteants^ tMrfKf.al^ConnsitS.^
For the RespoffdentstV^Mr. S/K.M^dar/Cbuns^el ?.
;■ i..
^•T5,-. '■ ' -a*
1;
r
!
if
a
Per: Ms. Bidisha Baneriee. Member (11: il V The applicant, who has assailed the entire departmental I t.
a t proceedings including its culmination with penalty order and Appellate ;i Order has sought for the following reliefs: '•5.
I "a. To set aside and quash the Memorandum No. DlGP/DE-78/2007-08/62 dated29/02/2008. r.
/
Y
.f 'l
2
b. To set aside and quash the order vide Order Book No. 7879 dated 25/08/2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
c. To set aside and quash the Order Book No. dated 18/10/2012 passed by the Appellate Authority. d. To pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble 4 Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice/'
2. Article of charges and indictments against the applicant as leveled ■;
vide charge memo dated 29.02.2008 are as under:
(extracted vwt^^p|iii?3'empfilsis^r clarity] s 181 J.Arun Anand* RaLabsenied from duties frwWUQO7 w^^^osied as*ih^al$%Mnd in the LW^frndDeDgs^dndlpdmfMewas supposM&diandover i£ 'HMs^charge mmhekpetsm, mtHourmther apvl^fislforkinv kind f -of leave driobtMninz bermissibndfor^iihe comp&fihU.afithority.
f. I m,ater it m^n^a^mm^ra^emrom PdgjlfaMv air W 1 i ^ % Raj (Ujgganfbmts K $ to gra-^^^p.oftd^S^b^^'^te^Aedience^hichisJn I 1I contraveniion^ofti^^hddS^&BrovisiXunder Rule*8.4§iof A 5 1I ^ of^em$r of j.
1i Police forElikmd &r£foge^bde^Mm liable fompugisTiment t i \ yZy-\ / J/Mlfhekash book. r-eceiutMSmFomMJd-2)k advice #' % J-
nbtS^Mowmith bills^ and paid^ouclf^^'whichMwere in !-•
% \
\
. omkaiiojf durm&sJJ, 04.2007^fVfere-t foimd rnissin£ from the [
%AlmirUh at Hfiliee. Lines, in wMic^the dMumenis and cash ph;taimrtgi£o the^SoSSjBhS Deport PupdAver^ptiored. Later the sam£%docunTents were recovened^from^the residence of \. PC/1 IST/WbAmn AMmdf8jf'7fj/S) dummfhouse search. i i That the^aPoVemctsmfW^ffun Anand Raj fU/S) amounts i to grave misconduct, deliberate disobedience, doubtful integrity y and misuse of official vosition which is in contravention of the mandatory provisions under Rules 8.45, 8.46 and 8.47 of A & N !■ f Police Manual, 1963, thus unbecoming of a member of Police i- force and therefore, renders him liable for punishment under s i Rule 9.3 of the said Police Manual l ARTICLE-111 That, PC/1181 J.Arun Anand Raj, instieated and fled away with Smti. K. Baby Sriia, wife of Shri, Biiumon alongwith ?!■ her minor daughter Kumari Geetu and money amountins to Rs. i 15.000/- and sold ornaments worth 120 grams from house.
That the above act of PC/1181 J.Arun Anand Raj (U/S) • amounts to grave misconduct, deliberate disobedience and moral turpitude which is in contravention of the mandatory •7 / r i ' nag-mnm /.
ft &-1 3 provisions under Rules 8.45, 8.46 and 8.47 of A & N Police Manual 1963, thus unbecoming of a member of Police force and therefore, renders him liable for punishment under Rule 93 ofthe said Police Manual.
ARTICLE-IV That, PC/1181 JArun Anand Raj was dealing with the Load and Deposit Fund and he was the custodian of the cash . \ and records pertaining to the Land and Deposit Fund of A& N ■i Police Force at the relevant time. Many irresularities and II lapses have been detected on the part ofPC/1181 J.Arun Anand Rai (U/S) during the period from 18.10.2006 to 14.04.2007 in i which he was the custodian and dealing hand of the said fund.
Cash deficit amounting to Rs. 58,832/- was detected in the audit of the Loan and Deposit Fund of A& N Police done by Chartered Accountant Shri R'avi-Chandran ofRavi Chandran & Thangarpj Associates, oj^e^don That thehnezligentM^dlin^m^mh dn jmportant official ! i position imk-3ltich he was cusibtii&nfdf .the%ioney of other /memBerSibf the force andjnisappropria^bmof, funds amounts to / /■ delMPateJ&Dbedience, / ^doubtful inteM$^nd mistBe £^cial posigm^wkich is in / ^ontraven^-of the mc^t&tJy^S^wns undefMlutes 8.45, r ■< fp?. 46 an(^^^f%MAP(MiJeMammfil^63, thu^mbibming i <■ for punishment under Pule fl/SAffsaid Police Manuals | S i J! fe?
or mii&avipr in ^ support mjf/ze arMe^ofWi^ge^dmi against $£/US2 J.
{ OArun %n§(u/S) • 1
! I w artMeJ / 1 4 X2f
1
I regarjing^cess recovery of monjffif'smscjdptign in Loan and
D0p&Ft!ndfCertain irregularim&^ere^jecpd omthe part 1 V ofiigpmgl APun^nand Raj^whuwas^alin^ wi0the Load \.an(FD0)osit o0olice (AP), on, 12/04^1007 for/jl&fiecf forffy d&ptartniental^nquiry against PCfhlSl f5 J/^Aryn Anand Raj an^^furth^0irected that the % ntainin^io%oan*andTfeDositd$trid be handed over on PC/732 Pan&j^Rah^Xhisrdi^eetiof^ms conveyed to PC/1181 J. Arun Anand Raj by Inspr. Rameshwar Singh, CLI, who, in turn, assured to hand over the charge on the next day, i.e., on 13/04/2007.
That, PC/1181 J. Arun Anand Raj did not turn up for i duty on 13/04/2007 and absented from duty without any ; authority. The charge of Loan and Deposit Fund was also not handed over to PC/732 Pankaj Rai as directed by the Superintendent of Police (AP). On 14/04/2007 two constables were deputed to ascertain the whereabouts of PC/1181 J. Arun Anand Raj and the enquiry revealed that he had left his house in the early hours, in the morning. It was also revealed that PC/1181 J. Arun Anand Raj had obtained an air ticket in a fake name viz. Surest from Jet Airways. * • f f 4 Thus, the above act of PC/1181 J. Arun Anand Raj unauthor isedly absenting from duty amounts to grave misconduct, deliberate disobedience and dishonesty which is in contravention of the mandatory provisions under Rule 8.46 ofA & N Police Manual, 1963 and is highly unbecoming of a member of Police force and therefore, renders him liable for punishment under Rule 9.3 ofsaid Police Manual.
ARTICLE-II That, on 16/04/2007 u/s 366/361 IPC was registered at P.S Pahargaon against PC/1181 J. Arun Anand Raj escaping out ofAndaman, the Departmentfelt the need to break upon the Almirah pertaining to the Loan and Deposit Fund to ascertain about any mis-appropriation. Accordingly a committee was formed with the approval of the competent authority and the Almirah was broken open by . the said committee and the inventory list of the itfms.pregared. It-was found that the cash book, receipt^g&B\(F6^^L}p-fj^adyice notes alongwith bills and pmd^ouchers which were f^ofe^afiop dining 13/04/2007 were missing from theAlmkah Upon thisga caie^ vide Crime / NdBS0O7 date{M0^2f^7W^smesisteredTasains fPC/1181 J Anm Anand^^/%u/s^ 38ll/^09^^^tat P.S Ajj0Uedh on the %omplaint^^SyiUi^\Mameshf^kSP (APffiJfuring the ^jr^estigamk^i^casefiopq0nS books, ^&,ice\notes, k^bills avB*the>r3!m§miMs^M recovel^ jr\ the Y house .y^hich was^the official i ! m amounts'^ Jp* k^vefmkdiwk^Smberate Arun J0mdk Raj difo^ed&nce, \ fjji dishonest^uf intent \m^$Usj0j official PoMfion $hich T: is in contravention of the jhartidafqry provisions unifer iRules
8.Mdjffi3h*l963 and ijhighly % uniecokff^Fa memb^ofPoliceioj^md therefore Menders ktis liable fdfa<nishment under RuitJ/f3 ofsaid Molicemdanual.
t \r§mc^jn JP: / \ \That, m-jl&W7mr'acase-^de Crin?fNoj97/2007 u/s M6<^3^4PC 'ddH Phar0ion against PC/1181 J. l%run ^%-nand Raj on the cojnpfaint^Mf Shri Bijumon, Driver(STS)^^o^dracharrWd^aUege(ift^t PC/1181 J. Arun L Anand Raj namely, Smti K.Baby Srija and younger daughter namely KumariGeetu, aged 10 yrs, alongwith ornaments worth 120 grams and cash amounting to Rs. 15,000/- which was kept at home.
That, such act of fleeing away with someone's wife alongwith a minor child and money amounts to most objectionable behavior, grave misconduct and moral turpitude on the part of PC/1181 J. Arun Anand Raj, which is in contravention of the mandatory provisions under Rules 8.45, 8.46 and 8.47 ofA &N Police Manual, 1963, thus unbecoming of a member of Police force and therefore, renders him liable for punishment under Rule 9.3 ofsaid Police Manual.
ARTICLE-IV That, PC/1181 J. Arun Anand Raj was dealing with the Loan and Deposit Fund and he was the custodian of the case L ----
5r ^' * and records pertaining to the Loan and Deposit Fund ofA& N Police Force at the relevant time. Many irregularities and lapses have been detected on the part of PC/1181 J. Arun Anand Raj (U/S) during the period from !8-l(b2006 ta J4-o4~ 2007 in which he was the custodian and dealing hand of the said fund. Cash deficit amounting to Rs. 58,832/- was detected in the audit of the Loan and Deposit Fund ofA & N Police done by Chartered Accountant Shri Ravi Chandran of Ravi Chandran & Thangarai Associates ordered on 19-0402007. The report submitted by the committee constituted to ascertain about the misappropriation of the fund reveals that:
a) The case book was not maintained properly and no entries were made after 27/11/2006.
b) That, no money was dep&siteddn the Bank between the period from 15/02/200^ iq?W0^J2007 whereas a huge amount of appr^iAie^\M:^9mOOO/^p;&dkave--accumulated by way vpfsubscription of recovery of louA: /Byrnot depositing such a £ • ^f*deprivedgkerFUl, sum is^pMg11811 #" Afid RaJ has feSp^rnty of earnin0yf4nterest on ' ** was to^issued to the aim^;^Mmm^^kn'disbu0 than '' " ft; f\more 1 reco&edfrk the I e* i © bar^J^y^A^Mareh O^reas the theF2trT °f loan^asfiisbfirsedh hmkn Me^nth ofApril i^onlf.
\ e) That bmpmpuniopRsAfidOfi/ffiwas released in favou^of S.I ^^aAeePdt^^^er eas^jmp^unt ofRsJs.OOO/- \ \ p ^wa^^le%^ed in favour of P^^^Saryc^^Kuma^without \ fc- \$$keirt$d§. being actually sanctignid. jt: $ i, . \ *Thdt exceSs^necpveryjmo^ing tows^ip'O/- ifas effected, XP \ tqwardgfh^ .repayment, ofAt^fromJhe pJ? of PC/2377 %, % Sartjay Yadav/ Mmother Hnstanc0fhe recovery of the loan •% lifhreSDect,'odiC/76 DebnathrShrria^^IRBn was completed in tlii^month of December TQfffi^But recoveries of monthly subscription werelftM^f/ectedfrom his salary for the month of January 2007 and March 2007, causing excess recovery of an amount ofRs.2500/-.
That, such negligent attitude of PC/1181 J. Arun Anand Raj while posted in an important official position in which he was custodian of the money of other members of the force and misappropriation of official funds amounts to grave misconduct, gross indiscipline, deliberate disobedience, :i!i i-
doubtful integrity and misuse of official position which in ■< contravention of the mandatory provisions under Rule 8.45, V 8.46 & 8.47 ofA & N Police Manual, 1963, thus unbecoming of a member of Police force and therefore, renders him liable for 1I?
punishment under Rule 9.3 ofsaid Police Manual. "
1 63. The manner in which the LO attempted to get the charges proved was quite astonishing. His findings are as under:
"xxx XXX XXX during regular hearing the following listed witnesses and additional witnesses have been examined which is asfollows:
L PW-1 SI K M Basheer. Accountant PHO:- Recorded statement and also exhibited documents in which he has given his statement to the Accountant, Loan & Deposit Fund, Police Lines and he has identified his signature containing in the document which have been marked as EX S-l and EX S- 1/1 respectively.
2. PVJ-2 PC/2377 Sanjav Yadav. PHO:- Recorded statement and also exhibited documents m, which he has given his statement to mtherAcc0ftn&ntT Ltyan & Deposit Fund, Police Lines in xyfich^U ks^menhonedih^t^Rs. 2000/- was excess recov^rfdjhier the same amount wds jjeturneUtto him by the Chgrgeci> Officer anfi^^hps^identifled 0 contents of his statement anfi^ffSuric6it^0g the docurndfa Which have it pw.l M nriAAvas:-
/^RecordedIsiatemehBnitd$:ls^exh^ite^fiocumm^in^which JShe tofc* 4>«'> e
-- Fund, that tij^as Men K* Rs. to sanction of his i © appUca^pJ^^^^iH^ame arnmnt t| the [ f %Accountxfo&Dr 0$ i6^(M/m^a^he has id&$fiek the contents df/thg statefiiefiAfiriH^hi^signature cofttaininjj the documpntw$telffiam bepn faarlwd assBX?§-3 and EXS-$/l. v 4. HaddoMarf:-
\ ldcofde3\taWhient and also exWbipS d&mrkpnts in which \ &j^lfq^gi\^^gn applicationt^ihe ^&>iiAtanY boon & \£eftogit Fund^ Poiite^Lines^eg^dmg ffbh piuam§ of receipt amouhting t^^fi^SO./r^vhich^Js^depio^tedjpthe' Charged Officer by^hirg being the'balance aj^&dnt the interest of the especial idtin~ofi,;gs.„25O0O/- and^he has identified his letter contehtrctrid signaturejcorttfnnina in the document which have been maFfceclifsEXS-4 and EX S-4/1 respectively.
5. PW-5 HC/76 Debnath Barriak of IRBn:- Recorded statement and also exhibited documents in which he has given an application to the Commandant, IRBn regarding to recoup his excess recovery of loan installment and he has identified his signature containing the document which have been marked as EXS-5 and EX S-5/1 respectively.
6. PW-6 PC/2364 0 Ibrahim. Police Line:- Recorded statement and also exhibited documents in which he has given an application to the Accountant, Loan & Deposit Fund, Police Lines regarding non issuance of receipt amounting to Rs. 14500/- which was deposited to the Charged Officer by him in four installments being the balance amount with the interest of the especial loan ofRs. 25000/- sanctioned to him / / ■ 1 and he has identified his letter content and signature containing in the document which have been marked as EX S- 6 and EX S-6/1 respectively.
7. PW-7 Shrt Bitumen. Driver STS nonnrtmani- Tf/q Garacharma:- Recorded the statement in which he has stated tat he has lodged an FIR No. 197/07 dated 16/04/07 U/s 363/366IPC at PS Pahargaon against the Charged Officer. He has identified the signature containing in the FIR which have been marked as EXS-7/1.
8. PW'8 Inspr. Rameshwar Singh. CLI Police Lines:- Recorded his statement in which he has stated the various misconduct done by the Charged Officer during his posting in the LDF section and he has also stated that how the Charged Officer kept the official record in his father's residence where he was also dwelling and how the^sgme record was seized by the SHO Aberde.ep%tfijg $m&erits seizure and his signatur^haJbJb^eA JfParkid igsfEXJS-8 %nd EX S-8/1. He furthe%ftgl>ed that he has handed vafid^s documents / 'pe^Snvhg to L^^e^m^mittee J^th£\irposes of * irt^ttion pbfl^DlGPflnt)^^ dated / Ending ^r^d/hi^J begged Q PW-91- ^Inspt^jl^^h^dal^th^hen Slfb^Afberdeen:- ^Record^s^^l§^^0,iefr1^as staMthS^ the If ^ proces^fremveiyMfflgii??™^ $ I k* father i^he>0^^^^^^dnqii^er, Aberdeen |izar | m and seiz^vagou^f^tmmtlar^ in the seWre njemo % , ^ has also^er^^/sfig^m^ c^tained in She Semite x KsJ memo dated'^4/0/07 ^hklr^hasj^en marked Q$*£X S-9/1. i He haj&funtHefiitated that&n/tfii writteji complaint jbf the % therflfy^ smmmiHP^M^as, lodged Lainst k % %e$°rNJ0lcer vide Cr- No-3®°^ d^df4/04p07 U/s X 381/40$ IPCfkeh as also identiflm his^ighafure Sntainmg \theifniwhich,hmeibeenrmar:l<§d a&EX$-9/2/ /
10. PW~10 ^/shrhSuresh Ex.flnSpr! Fire&ervm>:- Recorded his%stptement in which 7i'e tias stated*fftat he^was also one of the witnesses ofthe.seizme^memo dateM4/04/07 which was conducted ihnhe^hguse ofthefgthefof the Charged Officer at Fire Head Quarter, ASefteeftBazar. He has also identified his signature containing the seizure memo which has been marked as EX S-10/1.
11. PW-11 Shh V P Pandey. DySP (CID1:- Recorded his statement in which he has stated that he was one of the members of te enquiry team to find out the various aspects of Loan & Deposit Fund of Police Department vide order No.R/DIGP(Int)/07/43 dated 15/04/07. After conducting inquiry a report was furnished to SP (AP) on 23/04/07 which reflects the misconduct of the Charged Officer. He has identified his signature contained in the report which has been marked as EXS-ll/1.
V / 8 The listed prosecution witness Shri Hareesh HP, DySP who is presently working under Delhi Police have been summoned several times but he has not responded and he has been dropped as the case ts getting delayed badly. Therca/inr the Presenting Officer insisted to call additional prosecution witnesses which have been found necessary to be examined in this case. Hence, the following additional prosecution has been examined which is as follows:-
APW-1 Shri S Ravi Chandran. Chartered Accountant. R/o Phonexbay:- Recorded his statement in which he has stated that he conducted audit ofLDFfor the period from 18/10/06 to 14/04/07 and found that cash deficit of Rs. 58,832/-. He has identified the contents of the audit report prepared by him and also his signature contained in the audit report which have been marked as EX SAPW-l and EX SAPW-1/1 respectively. A V 7/"' 5 *5 f; fr „< APW-2 ShrkRfN-Du&ey. [SE PTSf Polite Lines:- Recorded his statement ih'which he has stated Oidilyjhile ti&yvas posted at PS^PaSargaon acgse?mj€nme No. 197/§>i dat&d 16/04/07 U0566/363JP^ms rigisWrSjkagainst the C$$ed Officer ^gn 'the coi^gw^mhn Bijmn<^^iver, SfSJ/ep'artment, fJt/O GargShqrrhq, He hdenkftdmsignature cbnfgmed. in the o. ' kFlR whi^hi^bi^MtM^A^rM/l. yf* | ^After r^^ihg^siqierriinfff^eJ-isted/Aditionai^vseiution witnesSesp^he-^mqedM^^nspim of proSufingiany a defensdAmesses/h^^^^mlfus^and written defense statemeqtjp^ffhwhi:^^m^qqeptefljffe article Cgthaifae-l, f \ article offiharge-2/ fapdI'mr%cle^0charge-3 he^ has partially accepteSthe afftAe 6%cHfiige-4. J Inpfticle^offhgrge-She'Stated thatpdsjtrfab^ that he pas not ,. idsti^ateh^Sm0K Baby Srija and^Qinpfidgfifihhr witli money \ ahmiiMjng l§QOp/- with 120 gpmf Goj^&himejts but he \further dcceptedlfout^mti^Baby^rifa traveledmim on her won billing. -V- ■; -%i\ /n article ofcfiarg$-4 Me stated^ffiatpdmas embezzled any LDF^motfm^.utjdi^ "that irregularities pertaining to-records may figye^occurred due to burden of work as he was the only person posted in the LDFsection.
After completion of regular DE proceedings the Presenting Officer Inspr. M A Azeez, PTS, Prothrapur has submitted his prosecution brief in which he has mentioned that all the charges framed against the Charged Officer is proved. (Copy enclosed).
Thereafter, the copy of prosecution brief was handed over to the Charged Officer PC/1181 J Arun Anand Raj (U/s) and the Charged Officer submitted his defense brief in which he has mentioned that he has taken the official record of LDF in his residence to complete the entries and all as he was the only staff posted in the LDF Section and he was to look after all the LDF works alone. Therefore, due to burden of work he took the records of LDF in his residence. He further mentioned
-zf.9
that on 10-11/04/2007 he has.deposited 10 lakhs ofIDF cash in the Syndicate Bank so how can he make the cash deficit of Rs. 58,832/-, Therefore, the CO believes that in his absence all the records were not seized and handed ever *© the enquiry committee or the Chattered Accountant and thereby a cash deficit ofRs. 58,832/- appeared in their respective report The copy of the defense brief of the Charged Officer is also enclosed.
CHARGE WISE ANALYSIS OF THE FACT:
Charae-t:- The article of charge-1 is proved as the Charged Officer has accepted the contents of the article of charge-1 in his defense statement submitted in his own hand written letter.
Charge-2:- The article of cEarge^tJs also proved as he has accepted'ihe fcont^np^^hevarticielifi^harge^ as he has 1 ' I/ mentioneddg stdter^§n^aiwe:ll^s in his defense brief
- -j Qmmy^ic
-9 et0 burden of work h e^usefto^ta k(fso m e record of /■ was / larged OjUfr / iccJjtSk&ifhe hat^iy\rden of ( ^ he %.....
he never did so.
| pli c t T
i
I $■ % amountifm^m/ ornamfnts but he
| Wffurther ac^mdghai Smtm tyb$j0rija travelecMrim oft her I
i" own mmng.m^^^sn^^Wimumn, the husband of
% Smfi'}^^b^rijaa^(Mh^Wotum0)Ussho^rg^an FlRMgainst
%%_ t$e^affijj[Wicer at PS Paha^r/fplia^kee 0 S-7/1) X sfigWsdpqt tffi>«article ofcharge^prov^'/ #$f Change-4:- Thy Cffifcged»Qffit&r defied thayfie has taken any 'gqvefhnient Worfey$(EpFtMon0f1pbe s£aiemetif ofShri Ravi CKhn^rm^e^ardin^ '^nducfihg ofoudfi ofJ0Ffor the period I from X8/10/^d06^to^l4/0-4/2rOd7 yvitn its audit report documents i-X^S4FW-l show^that^^amount of cash deficit of Rs. 58,832/- wdsJiSmiffn the LDF. Hence, the article of i charge-4 also proved. i FINDINGS On the basis of the statements of the listed and additional prosecution witnesses as well as listed and additional exhibited documents the charges framed against PC/1181 ]. Arun Anand Raj (U/s), Charged Officer by the disciplinary authority vide Memorandum No. DIGP/DE- 78/2007-08/62 dated 29/02/2008 is proved."
The findings reveal no cross examination by the applicant. It seemed to be absolutely a non sided affair.
/ s! =5^ .. ..... .
104. The applicant on the other hand had responded to the findings stating as under:
i
1. That I never accepted Article 3 and Article 4 of charge as the same are totally false. No evidence/record has been adduced during the Inquiry which connects me with alleged Article of charges leveled against me. The Inquiry Officer has erroneously came to the conclusion that the charges leveled against me are proved.
2. That it will be clear from the record that I was on medical rest w.ef 13.042007 and I have intimated department through proper channel that I was on medical rest. Thus theArticle 1 of chargemonly partially accepted.
n:
3. Tham^pir^tke^rMe i^fieharge^made against me that BljiM^taken the cash book, hee^pbodk^forms LD-2), /adMJOfablc alongMtii0Msmd paid voMpr which were in / opSmtion du0mA.2^^re found mfeJig in the / ' psUr'will ^J^irhabem^mufttirlkaf ihaf0ur^meemed hous^/^t That D0artmentgo i ■ ' I Ws crop^SmM^^^^^ed^i'c!|in his pe'frod off.oan 1 a ,«*, and d($osit*Fund^em0!^ne Veud0nstati!&And>two I ^Policekastaam^^moMfundc^erAtit '.f ^ * W* At that porMgf^mii iyal mnsjgred to Polic&Mne single f 1 handedtofiLDp'S^imjmi^fs^tg.yaihpgssible to looM after h assiiant. It 1 JhsAffiosmle to complete thmseimeM\t offijfe single 1 \ mndmly so JHr4ed to complete ajMe do^umehts affiny h ome %Jn ^^dfaithranrtWwasTiindiefSie l^k dtid}$iy injny place. So hspehthe aM£l^gMiwge^00aga0t mgl never tried to^cheatexifciiangeci t^Aocumentssfl^banjmd Deposit Fund.
4. That^m-^erjMe Artcle^of^Warge made against me that I have fileTwiffff^TBaby Srija, W/o K. Bijumon along with her minor daughter namely Kumari Geetu and money amounting of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand rupees only) with gold ornaments worth of 120 grm from her house.
The above said said lady herself admitted in front of Id. Court below of Honorable Chief Judicial Magistrate at Port Blair that she has travelled with her own consent and her willful and also not forced or under pressure of any one. So it is not possible to take any person without her will along with her minor child until she is a unsound mind even though she is a married woman.
5. That as per the Article 4 of charge made against me that any irregularities and lapses have been detected during S' 11 the period of 18.10.2006, 14.04.2007 and was were found deficit of Rs. 58,832/- (fifty eight thousand eight hundred thirty two rupees onfyj, / submit that in the IDF section, it is not possible for anyone to cheat our esteemed Deportment per the bylaws. The accountant should maintain certain receipt and cash book with regard the above said section. The Inquiry Officer could not produce any documents which goes against me as per the bylaws. That I have neither taken any amount nor taken any advantage from the LDF section, I further submit that / have deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 (ten lakh rupees only) in Syndicate Bank of LDF accounts before two or three days of the said incident Hence it itself shows that my intention was not tried to cheat/mislead our esteemed Department •.
6. That I {umA spb§i^thqt Ffarn got married and having struggling a lot. At present this esteemed Depdrihtent Will, takes any ZsmSsJbrder agmgst^^^self fafaly would be ./. pd^iitto grecrtfh&rtisbip for dQll^imead. Further^ssure that I / not repmtah);.siehmm of mtsmiduct in^^futlim ' humb^pursgood j' ■f ^self a favor/ble rder i 1 HenctQ, h&nbly rI' C requesi^^^^^fia^l last time^ j i TJieiDisciplinat^^fori^|)liIg^h?€)£pJy
5. 1 cu i Inspectofelnelal of iI ,^ Policy, while / ISA Jr **** I of making
--fa % representati^i ^•tn^qro^'osed penalty of m-.se ice, gave / his tentative fiS'din^/as 'v ^'■ '.•.»• £. 2'„, '? ; A y :i "K ca^ef^W disggssionqjmy perused the Enquf^Rppoi^^ubmine.dJ>y^t}ie^En^ui^ Officer alongwith the releva'n^necgrds^and alsg^eonfidered his written reply dated 03-02-2012flWwas also heard in person in Orderly Room by the undersigned on 12/06/2012. The Charged 'i|! Officer, PC/1181 JArun Anand Raj (U/S) has taken the i i! following stands in his defense.
1. That he has never accepted the charges in Article 3 & i';
. i• Article 4 and the Enquiry Officer has erroneously arrived l at the conclusion that charges against him stands proved. ?
2. That he was on medical rest with effect from 13/04/2007 I and it was intimated to the Department Hence charge in A Article -I is only partially accepted.
!>■
3. That he took all the official records to his home only with the intention to clear the documentation work as he was notfinding it possible to complete all the work in the office / i-
#■
»*• ~~r~ •w®;.
\
12
f'
t/me due to excessive work bad. He never tried to cheat / the Department as alleged in Article-2.
4. That, the lady, Smtl. JCBaby Srija w/o K.Bijumon traveled with him of her own wish. It would not have been possible to take a married lady against her wish until she is t mentally unstable as alleged in Article-3.
5. That he had submitted a sum ofRs. 10,00,000/- in the LDF Account with the Syndicate Bank only two or three days prior to the incident which shows that he was not intended to cheat the department as alleged in Article-4.
The Charged Officer has raised only capricious reasons in response to the fmdings served vpon him. With respect to his conterttiow^a|a^#%v^j Enquiry Officer has no where s^Sd\j7$nis findings CMrged Officer has accepied%ik charges in Article 3 & Wti:cle-4. \ in his i are nothing bumis Wkmtijy his rmsddmeanor. .r f ,t l Hince 13Mp^07^^M£^Pmd issued^oker on I# 4^/14/04/^^t/drder^m^^ii&^meMwar SinSffto enquire f?
I ^ about since i&/04/$007.
! ^ The repont^sttSmi^V^^Mp^iormRafneshwar ^SinghjaIso 1 CP clearly ^eaks^af.£bS^lM^e3^@fflcM:was absiMina from ! | ; V duty on ffimOb&M 11 \ X W m I I The Hdfitention in. phrcks Ilmt he was ovefburaened \ Sr with work^loMiQrJivhkh betook themfficial documSits to \ ho/^yo^complete^flWfoB^TalsoMot^a^iusiifable ac£ If the siiudbn\as^b, he could have ci&^ed^gk the ^situation X \ td^i^mor^qsl5 & soughtappropriaffeTremedieif \fhe conte^dn^of^th^Lhanged Officer that the lady. !■ :
Smt KlBaby Sriimtmveled witlrMlm of hefown^ish does not hoTd^any^merit as the^husband jrftheJudv has fled a compldint. at PS^Pahanaaon^crlleaing^that Police Constable. l.Arun Anancl:*RaLhas promptedMsWife and fled away with her wife and daughter disturbing his family life. Even if the i t contention of the Charged Officer is taken into consideration i s: for argument sake that she had traveled with the Charged Officer of her own wish, it was the bounded responsibility . upon the Charged Officer to inform the husband of the lady at least that the lady and the child are traveling with him. By doing so, he could have averted the embarrassing situation for the department. The Charged Officer had not only failed to £ ? do so, but also traveled from Port Blair to Chennai in a fake name. A member of the Police Department who is responsible to protect the interest of the public and follow the law is never expected to indulge in such illegal andfraudulent acts. 1 The contention of the Charged Officer that he had 5 deposited Rs. 10,00,000/- in the LDF Account with Syndicate ! I' /f .13
Bank few days prior to the incident which substantiate that he did not intend to cheat the Department, does not absolve him from the responsibility of the deficit sum of Rs. 58,832/- in the LDF account The Charged Officer who is given the responsibility of maintaining proper accounts and safe guard the government money has failed to justify the deficit amount ofRs. 58.832/- which is a gross misconduct During his personnel hearing on 12/06/2012 also, he could not bring forward any new facts other than those mentioned in his written reply dated 03/02/2012. Under the ! aforesaid circumstances, the undersigned find no reason to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The Charged Officer who is a member of the disciplined police force has not only absented from duty but left the place of posting without obtaining permission and tfdveledMsing fake name, but the records/p/rtainingUo. fiiBFiaqjsoygt wSh^gJso not traceable in >! • 'ihWla-'HaV^bfig' kepte^Later the same the.jofficq^$er$if were^e^^red from the residence dfitl^Gharpe^d Officer.
ChargeMjg^touging fake @ne, lefePort Blair I ./ i to^ff&nnai wipl0^hK.8ab^Wijp^ife of ShriBijuimn along ^wiih her jrMo\dluSt& AwmljL Geetuj^mthout even t ^forminS^m^mmjpSyMng a i^bet%pf law £ ^nforcirM^incy^m^&m Apart offhf Charged S' # ^-Officerms^ou^^^^^^^artmeiMnd hows f m that heMas^smnPr^^^^Svml&sflm: law. I« K I £* fom£he%ash i; ijj deficit d^^8f83£$fMmkefBS^Sunt and taffaiM to it i t\managemo^h&m^h^. fill I ! I The \g!xofdi§;t biWhjfilgF of Chargeft**0ffiier is I i; serio^ndJaa§jmgM bjijrimpMfo&whole department Kej0g#Aefmm^p^&^. not on$ erode
-i t$ejtbpfideQcSof common mannn tkf police force Mut also \ 'k df0dt$he rr$n%i}e of other discipffnedi^eth&ersJddversely. % %Sfrirengfore, it?Js proposed^to^i^Jc]^ the' penaltyM dismissal y^^hi^ce^cm^^^ed^^rforjdfm^nduct."
In reply, the appliGant^informed the authority about pendency of a criminal proceeding before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, A&N Island, Port Blair. Although, he admitted I ' •$' ■ the charge of having traveled with the lady, along with her child, but i denied the allegation of fleeing away with her as she on her on volition I sought to be accompanied by the applicant. He also submitted that in ! regard to Article 1, 2 and 4, criminal proceedings were pending and no document was exhibited during inquiry to establish misappropriation of / _ i.
•*?.
§ \ V 14 any money or that he had traveled in a fake name. On 25.08.2012, having noticed that the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings proceed in different manner, the standard of evidence and proof being different and having noticed that retaining such persons, as the present applicant, in a disciplined force will not only erode "the confidence of common man in the police force also adversely affect the moral of other disciplined members, the proposed penalty was confirmed. !*■ i ' 6. The apgicant^|fei|S liPalpfealp^il!st penalty order % %% % '! wherein he'stateijiat beforejb^fettjgihe penalty, sgwas Acquitted in the criminal charges in^^Said tl offphce^ndirsSection 66^/36*3 of the ! f & Mkk * *.* 1 i. ii £■ % IPC # th|Mditior^^y^^^^p2^i was not@kii into ■;1 B-
,hc were 'ga'| °n ■f samf sCM fans arijiSaankffifl^llsantMd also i ■i I # % llL a/# i 11 \ Jr M?' I ther| wasilho evidence^! refold lha| h%Mj|^aken Rs. 151000, Ilong with ipld Orna^&s^a^offln!^K^^^fec^vas#ffisttged by tfc lady whom haS^a^^mpanied. and it was simply'og%S^'- gfou-nj^that the husband onthe vilfetodn>Jiadafi^!cfe cqp^'laMfFurther, no i '■%S( " ^ * documents were phoduceB^tospmv^that^an^mountw Rs. 58,832/- was ..........
* f found deficit from the account. Nb'audit record was furnished and no document was served upon him to prove as evidenced or any evidence f t t 'A that led to prove that he had committed any misconduct.
y The Appellate Authority while issuing his order of 18.10.2012 i held that acquittal in criminal case was not determinative of the r commission of misconduct or otherwise. The approach and objective of ! i the proceeding being entirely different, the Appellate Authority t l & / i * --■ ' a >< v 15 recorded that the applicant had admitted traveling by fake name in his defence statement dated 31.10.2012. The said authority also concluded that the appellant have been a member of a disciplined police force where highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness are- necessary and inbuilt requirement, not only misused his official position but also misappropriated departmental funds and instead of maintaining an exemplary conduct before the general public, he was involved in the act of eloping with somebody's wife, alon^ with4is child, which act cannot :■ be tolerated iny4byl)i$ as such, the Director qen^il¥olice, the ^ella^JVuthority, affirmed thgiimiss^^r^e| ^ \ \
7. |th|ftder dafe® S&ions Judge/A^Iil Island®'0rt®Blat^^||'si|l^f@asesNiift:i27/2OO'QSeSSions Trial N<i|9/2010)mrgg^^i»^fe4Mion 366$* ollPC recc^dlaslinder: ^ | J i \ . ^br the ;
\ afuiedSm Smt KBo^e^\pwfclearly 1 \ admittedjhaKaqcused never fo$$ed hel^i?Jtccotipany the 1 \aca/sedfind~s}\e\pW-Aj^only^enQwit}i:thqfdccu^d with her ;
ti0$ 'hen0iildren were with^.er^n^fie (PW-:lJ%nly4ibok^er^childi;fii with her, with furthef%dditiohHhat^ke^PM^^had^0 away leaving the ,••5 house ofluHusJm# as shejm^iled to bear up torture inflicting on her by her husband. i ■ S r;!!i -• Thus from the evidence of victim lady Smt K.Baby !* ii Shreeja there is nothing against the accused in the way that the accused took away the victim lady to compel her to marry %■ against her will or to have sexual intercourse with anyone m r against her will, which are the most important requirement for the offence u/s 366IPC. As l stated earlier, prosecution did Ji not examine defacto complainant Shri M.Biju Mone who filed sr the jabanivadi (Ext.2) and then he was brought as a witness by court and examined as court witness no.l and then he 1 (CW-1) simply stated that he has nothing to say.
These are the only evidences in this case and I find that I there is nothing in any way to support the charge as framed :ri! ;
against the accused.
■I I : ' 16 i It is, therefore, ordered, That for want of sufficient evidence, accused JArun Anand Ra] is not found guilty of the charge u/s 366/363 and he is acquitted u/s 235(1) Cr.PC and it is also directed that he be releasedfrom the bail bond at once."
8. Ld. Counsel for the applicant would strenuously urge that the entire proceedings were conducted in arbitrary and gross violation of procedural law inasmuch as the daily order sheets were not furnished i to him. The Respondents hve failed to make put a stealing case or of 'I cj fr *4
-.1 ! 0 misappropriation. The^ac%ilsa1tioh,Nof-tfe#:pif6llate Authority on mis- t % % appropri^i8iu|4ftad havi|^|g|!|d^ond tHe|ppe ^legations 0,the'harfl f ^
9. iPen contra, LdRiouhseM(%tlMlispQn?den®rehementl5f opposed /h theiubrnfesion de^iting^^^^^^^acep^ng to hi^wa^ield 1„ in sbupglbus obse^m^^te^^a^l. Ld. Coi^l v|)uld also||u4mft that char^^^ing^e^r ^a^^^^ure and ■th'^pro|osed punilhment beingCpiigjie^^^^^^^d"|^^^^S^^was givefi with Inquiry lOfficIr's^^.go^Which was repli^#to, ^a| t one of the / r :■ #■ criminal cassis sfMLpenaing^gainst the^a®litantJ?€rthefT Ld. Counsel
-■%. -k^nm %ti ir i would draw our attentiontb^theademand-of'call bygthe applicant and his r '«%i ( Wi' prayer for pardon. Referring to WelS^ision of the B.C.Chaturvedi. Ld. [ i Counsel would submit that in absence of any procedural law or denial of i opportunity to meet the charges, penalty imposed for such serious !):
charges was absolutely commensurate to the offence alleged.
= i
10. We heard Ld. Counsels for both the parties and perused the ;
,! materials on record.
i • i r \i ■S J; / '/ 17 V •y 11. In the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank (2009) 2_SCC 570. the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said doamie.n&. qnanggenfent^ witnesses merely tendered tjkeyi^mth%%%dtdjdfnpt p%y;g the contents theredf^Jfeliance, inter alia, wds *pl§.ced Sy%the Enquiry ■ cW£i^n the not ha@beerhfreated as / eififence". "i |: I a ,«■ s h\ 4* %\ s M % f !' f f Jr Ik * i^ ; ^ S' i Apex Court ruled:. PI & tft: 4-
£ fi 64 S"1
l O are not te?6|p{oi^5«fca^m/na/ tnaftg, beyond /
'f all reaso n a BfeMou b ts. we cdnnotJose sight of the fact that the
i; Enquiry OTricer^perfdrmsua^uahjudi^Tdnfunction. who upon
i
%
atfalvsina, theMocuments must drrivetot*a Conclusion that <w ■n thereihad Peen a preponderance'ofproba&ilit^ to prove the charde/.on th^basis of materials on recofd.fWhWj doing so. 'khe cannot takeJnto iconsiderafojfh any irrelevant fact He cdnnotrefuse to ccmiide'r theSrelevantfacts.jffe cannot shift the burden ofproof. He cannot reject thesfelevant testimony of the witnesses only dn'tHebasis ofgurmises and conjectures. f He cannot mi(UiT*^nto^heil *fiflegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with." ! (■ Hon'bie Supreme Court in B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 749, held as under:
i "Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of ?! judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court 1 il J / 18 When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of naturaljustice are compiled with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence.
Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. When ! the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts where appeal is presented the appellate authority has coextensive power to re- Jappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment The f Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as i r appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive ri r i ^at its own independent findings on the evidence. The $ S'.
^hCourt/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the ^^proceedings a_gainst _ the delinquent officer in a manner ii ^inconsistent with the rules of natural iustice or in violation of I£• 5 l ■statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the i. conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is * I based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no %: ! would have ever reached, the P reasonable person 1 Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, % and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of i .jS' % that case" V j? s % I% ^ vV*'/ $ % \ It further held>+^^^*^ V■V r-v v % ^ "the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the r misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the ;
power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the >• appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either :
directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in t ii exceptional and rare cases impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof".
■ ■ :
;
m sir:' »>■ ■r-12. 19
We note that criminal charge in regard to defalcation of money ( etc. is yet to be proved. There is no direct proof of misappropriation of s fund by the applicant. He was never given an opportunity to defend Of! that count, yet the Authorities have concluded against him, as extracted ;
supra. The applicant was not supplied with the copies of deposition but he has never agitated upfront on that score. However, none of the findings reveal that he was offered opportunity of cross examination by i?
the delinquent which constitute a grave flaw in the conduct of s>.
proceedings. The appJicantVas4^quitcedci|i A/ criminal case having found not gul^C^eloping^pfeor^^eise's w^(and\eeing with money although he admi|telyi^/iJg tfa^ele^^ith her,^v^ch%act was if ^ 1 jr \ not taken,i&o considfraffenWfe4 fels^iplfnafy^thority Sd^tphellate A^„rttThe as t0®;ra1 ""
gralest^nm of the af^l^anl has
; = r% %y/fi\\\&
not challenged quantum|pf punishment irfflicted^upon him.
^ I
I
'% i- I I Jk0?' i
%lowever/f6Kthe^ends 6Tf€i?ic^®d haylng^noteS^the legarfacuna \\ / fVrA% / as aboVe, we duish trfe, order of the J^cipU^ly^utlj^ity and \ x ^ jf Appellate Authority, and/remand the matter back^fo the^'Disciplinary Authority to decide^|ak^^nt0^a(xpunrtis acgpifel of the criminal *****^^ l charge and absence of direct evidence of stealing or misappropriation.
1 the correctness of conclusion on the charges by the Inquiry Officer on i i his misappropriation etc. and, accordingly, decide the quantum of the punishment to be inflicted on the applicant in regard to the charges i leveled against him of taking leave and retaining office files, that is whether such allegations would still attract the gravest form of i!'!; penalties as of dismissal or removal from service etc. Let appropriate ;| HfSlgpa,- ■:• t ■ ■ -.
"W •:' v:-'_r;_ .-, •-
:•: ■i.
/
20
i
orders be issued within a period of three months from th© dot© of f / communication of this order. Till such time the applicant may be placed on suspension.
'i (N. Neihsial^) ^ (B.Banerjee) Administrative Member Judicial Member * -i*.
RK V» a'
»
..5
W
r.
j?- %
;•
■i
i
f
■i
^ '
!■■ ■| -m
•j
i
v
I''1
f
•r
5%
i
's
1
#
r
C
*
u
&
IS