Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Siddharth Pareek S/O M. L. Pareek vs Commissioner Of Police on 22 March, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.1830 of 2010 This the 22nd day of March, 2011 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE SHRI L. K. JOSHI, VICE-CHAIRMAN (A) Siddharth pareek S/o M. L. pareek, R/o Flat No.5, PP Amar Colony, PS lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Applicant ( By Shri Ajesh Luthra, Advocate ) Versus 1. Commissioner of Police, PHQ, MSO Building, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Police, VIIth Bn/DAP, PTS Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. Respondents ( By Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Sidharth Pareek, a Sub Inspector in Delhi Police, the applicant herein, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to quash Annexure A-1 order dated 8.4.2010, vide which Deputy Commissioner of Police, VII Bn. DAP has ordered a regular departmental enquiry against him. The allegations on which the applicant is to be departmentally tried have been mentioned in the order itself, which read as follows:
It is alleged that S.I. (Exe.) Siddharths Pareek, No.D-1075 (PIS No.16880100) while posted at P.S. I.G.I. Airport was entrusted the investigation of Case FIR No.223/07 u/s 419/420/468/471/120-B IPC & 12 Passport Act P.S. IGI Airport. S.I. arrested Sh. Arun Popli on 11.07.1997 and demanded Rs.2 lacs from his brother Sh. Vijay Popli as illegal gratification in order to get Arun Popli bailed out and to save another accused Surender Popli.
On 18.7.1997 Sh. Vijay Popli made a complaint in the anti Corruption Branch alleging that Sub Inspr. Siddhartha Pareek of P.S. I.G.I. Airport had falsely implicated his brother Arun Popli in case FIR No.223/97 dated 22.03.1997. He further alleged that on 10.07.1997 when the complainant along with his father met S.I. Siddhartha Pareek, the S.I. demanded Rs.2 lacs to release his brother who has been allegedly detained illegally. The complainant requested the S.I. to release his brother Arun. However after receiving Rs.1 lac S.I. Siddhartha Pareek falsely arrested Arun Popli in the above case. On 17.07.1997, the complainant met S.I. Siddhartha Pareek in the court in connection with the bail of his brother Arun. S.I. Siddhartha Pareek demanded Rs.50,000/- by threatening the complainant that he would make a major case by using forged passports and fake stamps against his brother Surinder Popli who was also suspected to be involved in the same case and was evading arrest. Sh. Popli struck a deal for Rs.40,000/- as he could not arrange Rs.50,000/- to be paid on 18.07.1997 at the residence of the S.I. at Police Quarter Amar Colony, New Delhi.
On the complaint a trap was laid by Anti Corruption Branch Delhi at Qr. No.05, Police Quarters Amar Colony, new delhi. On receiving the signal from panch witness the raiding team apprehended S.I. after some commotion. In the meantme the father-in-law of S.I. Sh. Madhu Sudhan Sharma, working as Dy. Supdt. in Municipal Health Committee gurgaon Haryana who was also present in the house took the packet containing bribe money and threw it down from the third floor in order to destroy the evidence. Money was recovered and the accused were arrested in case FIR No.28/1997 u/s 7/13 POC Act and 120-B/201 IPC P.S. A.C. Branch. He was placed under suspension vide order No.4347-70/HAP-(IGIA), dated 24.07.1997 w.e.f. 18.07.1997 and re-instated vide order No.9583-9604/HAP/IGIA/P-II(B), dated 11.11.1998. Now as per the revised S.O. No.125/2008 SI was placed under suspension w.e.f. 18.11.2009 i.e. date of conviction. A DE contemplation order was also issued vide this office order No.1073-1092/HAP-VII Bn. DAP, dated 19.02.2010. The applicant faced a criminal trial on the same very allegations that are subject matter of the departmental enquiry, and has since been held guilty and sentenced vide judgment dated 18.11.2009 passed by the special Judge (PC Act)-06 Tis Hazari, Delhi, as follows:
10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I sentence convict Siddharth Pareek to undergo RI for a period of three years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- u/s 7 of POC Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo SI for a period of three months. The convict is further sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years with fine of Rs.10,000/- U/s 13(1)(d) punishable U/s 13(2) of POC Act and in default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo RI for a period of three months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently and the convict shall be entitled to benefit u/s 428 Cr.PC.
2. The only contention raised in support of the present Application is that the applicant cannot be put to departmental enquiry as such an enquiry would be barred by provisions contained in rule 11 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. With a view to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel, it would be appropriate to reproduce rule 11. The same reads, thus:
11. Punishment on judicial conviction.(1) When a report is received from an official source, e.g. a court or the prosecution agency, that a subordinate rank has been convicted in a criminal court of an offence, involving moral turpitude or on charge of disorderly conduct in a state of drunkenness or in any criminal case, the disciplinary authority shall consider the nature and gravity of the offence and if in its opinion that the offence is such as would render further retention of the convicted police officer in service, prima facie undesirable, it may forthwith make an order dismissing or removing him from service without calling upon him to show cause against the proposed action provided that no such order shall be passed till such time the result of the first appeal that may have been filed by such police officer is known.
(2) If such police officer is acquitted on second appeal or revision, he shall be reinstated in service from the date of dismissal or removal and may be proceeded against departmentally.
(3) In cases where the dismissal or removal from service of the convicted police officer is not considered necessary, the disciplinary authority may examine the judgment and take such departmental action as it may deem proper.
(4) When a police officer is convicted judicially and consequently dismissed or removed from service, and it is desired to ensure that the officer dismissed or removed shall not be re-employed elsewhere, a full descriptive roll with particulars of punishments, shall be sent for publication in the Delhi Police Gazette.
3. A perusal of the provisions contained in rule 11, in our view, would entitle the authorities to dismiss a subordinate rank simply because of his conviction in a criminal case, even though it is a different matter that to resort to dismissal from service, the authorities shall have to await result of the first appeal that may have been filed by the subordinate rank against the conviction and sentence. Simply because of conviction of a subordinate rank, an order of dismissal from service can been passed, which can be passed only after his first appeal is dismissed, but on his acquittal on second appeal or revision, he shall have to be reinstated in service. In the event of conviction of a police officer, the concerned authorities have power to examine the judgment and take further departmental action as well. There is no bar contained in rule 11 of the Rules of 1980 to proceed against a subordinate in case of his conviction. It is no doubt true that the appeal preferred by the applicant against the order of his conviction and sentence is pending disposal before the Honble High Court of Delhi, and his sentence has also been suspended. The applicant has not been dismissed from service on account of his conviction, as surely it cannot be done as long his appeal is pending, but there is no bar for departmentally proceeding against him on the same very allegations that may be subject matter of the criminal trial.
4. Finding no merit in this Original Application, we dismiss the same, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.
( L. K. Joshi ) ( V. K. Bali ) Vice-Chairman (A) Chairman /as/