Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Hc Raj Kumar (Pis No.28820782) vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 29 January, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA NO.1534/2009 New Delhi this the 29th day of January, 2010 Honble Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) HC Raj Kumar (PIS No.28820782) S/o Sh. Waman Rao, R/o DAP 3rd Bn, Barrack No.2, Vikas Puri, Police Lines, Delhi. Applicant. (By Advocate: Ms. Jasvinder Kaur) VERSUS 1. Government of NCT of Delhi Through: Commissioner of Police Police Head Quarters IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Joint Commissioner of Police Southern Range, IP Estate Delhi. 3. Dy. Commissioner of Police South District: New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Shri R.N. Singh) O R D E R Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman (A):
The Applicant was proceeded against departmentally on the following allegations.
Summary of allegations:- It is alleged against Head Constable Raj Kumar No.2225/SD (PIS No. 28820782) that while posted as Police Post B-Block, P.S. Sangam Vihar, on 26.1.06 there was a fight between the boys at ground on Pahari while playing cricket. In the fight three persons got injured. The DD entry No.7 dated 26.1.06, lodged in this regard, was marked to HC Raj Kumar No.2225/SD for taking necessary action according to ambit of law. The HC collected the MLCs of Farid Ahmed, Amit and Lucky from the hospital but did not take any action, though Farid Ahmed and Amit had serious head injuries. On 29.1.06, the relatives of Faid Ahmed visited P.S. Sangam Vihar and told the SHO about the incident. The matter was enquired from HC Raj Kumar, who admitted about the hospitalization of Farid Ahmed and his MLC but he did not disclose about the injury and MLC of Amit who was from other party. On the same day a case FIR No.86/06 u/s 308/34 IPC was registered on the statement of Farid Ahmed, on the intervention of SHO and investigation was handed over to ASI Mainuddin, P.P. H-Block. On 11.2.06, Sh. Kanchi Lal Sharma, father of Amit visited the P.S. and told the SHO about the incident of dated 26.1.06. He also gave a written complaint about the incident and enclosed the treatment slip. From the perusal of MLC and complaint, it was clear that Amit s/o Kanchi Lal was beaten severely, but the Head Constable did not take any legal action against the alleged persons. A case vide FIR No.143/06 u/s 308/323/34 IPC was registered on the statement of Amit and investigation was handed over to SI Balbir Singh. The HC Raj Kumar No.2225/SD neither told about this incident to SHO/Sangam Vihar nor I/C P.P. H-Block, and he also failed to take legal action.
The above act on the part of Head Constable Raj Kumar No.2225/SD amounts to gross misconduct, negligence and malafide towards his official duties which renders him liable for departmental action under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules -1980. After examining twelve witnesses for prosecution and following due procedure the inquiry officer held the charge against the Applicant to be proved. A penalty of forfeiture of three years approved service permanently was inflicted on the Applicant. His appeal was rejected. The orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities have been challenged in the instant OA.
2. Before we consider the arguments in this case, it would be instructive to deconstruct the summary of allegations against the Applicant as follows:
(i) The DD entry number 7 dated 26.01.2006 regarding altercation between two groups of boys, in which three boys were injured, was marked to the Applicant for necessary action. Although the Applicant collected medico legal reports of Farid Ahmed, Amit and Lucky, yet he did not take any action though Farid Ahmed and Amit had head injuries.
(ii) On 29.01.2006, when the SHO of Police Station, Sangam Vihar was told about the incident by the relatives of Farid Ahmed, he inquired from the Applicant about the incident, who told him about the injury to Farid Ahmed and his medico- legal case, but did not disclose the facts about the injury to Amit and the medico- legal case relating to him. He did not inform the official in-charge of Police Post H-Block about the incident.
(iii) On 11.02.2006, father of Amit visited the Police Station and gave a written complaint about the incident. From the perusal of MLC and the complaint by Amits father, it was clear that Amit had been beaten up severely, but the Applicant did not take any action against the assailants.
3. The arguments of the learned counsel for the Applicant mainly revolve round the fact that Amit, one of the boys who sustained injuries, did not want to file an FIR. She has pointed to the statement of Amit (PW-2), who has stated in his examination that the Applicant wanted to record his statement on the night of 26.01.2006 but he (Amit) was not feeling well and could not give any statement. Advertence has also been made to the cross-examination of PW-2, Amit specifically to second question and its reply:
Qtn No.2. When I came to your place did I advise you to lodge an FIR against second party?
Ans. I never wanted to give any statement to HC Raj Kumar at that time. She has taken us through the discussion of the evidence by the inquiry officer in his report and would point out that there is no mention of Amits (PW -2s) statement regarding his not wanting to lodge an FIR. The disciplinary authority, the learned counsel would contend, has accepted the explanation that case was not registered because Amit did not give any statement regarding the case. The disciplinary authority has observed thus in his order:
I have carefully gone through the statement of PWs, defence statement, findings of the EO and other material available on DE file. I agree with the findings of the EO and the delinquent was present in the O.R. and stated that another complainant Amit did not give any statement in this regard that why case was not registered, which is found acceptable. It is contended that Lucky, PW-3, has also stated that he (Lucky) also did not give statement against Farid. The cross-examination of PW-3, as reproduced below, has been adverted to :
Qtn No.2. Had you given any statement to me at your place to lodge a complaint against Farid?
Ans. No, I have not given any such statement.
Qtn. No.3. Did your father give any statement not to take any action on this matter ?
Ans. No, not in my presence. She would further contend that the Applicant had informed Sub-Inspector Sh. K.P. Shah, in-charge of the Police Post H- Block, as would be clear from his deposition as PW-9, before the inquiry officer, that the Applicant had informed him about the incident on 27.01.2006 at the morning briefing. The FIR of Farid was recorded on 29.01.2006 (placed at Annex A-3) and the FIR of Amit was recorded on 11.02.2006 (placed at Annex A-4). The learned counsel would point to the portion of the FIR, in which Amit had stated that he did not want legal action against any one.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents would contend that the DD entry about the altercation had been given to the Applicant to take legal action in the matter. He would contend that the Applicant was bound to take action under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. after coming to know about the incident and collecting the MLCs from the hospital. The learned counsel has pointed out specifically to the following observation of the inquiry officer:
The delinquent should have registered the case on the same day i.e. 26.01.2006 either on the statement of any other eye witness or on the DD entry/PCR call itself. The learned counsel further contends that the Applicant did not inform the official in-charge of the Police Post H-Block about the incident on 26.01.2006. He (the Applicant) informed the said official about it only in the morning briefing. He informed the SHO of P.S., Sangam Vihar, only when the relatives of Farid visited the Police Station and then too not about the injuries to the other boy, Amit.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the original file of the departmental inquiry.
6. We find no merit in the contentions on behalf of the Applicant. As has been rightly observed by the inquiry officer, he could have taken action to register the case, having been informed about it and having visited the injured persons at the hospital, even though Farid was unconscious and Amit was reluctant to give any statement. We have given the elements of the charge elsewhere in this order, from which it would be seen that the Applicant did not inform the SHO and official in-charge of the Police Post about the incident, till he was asked about it. The charge is not that he did not register the FIRs of Farid and Amit. The charge is that he did not take any action, though he had been directed to do so and that he did not inform the SHO and in-charge of the Police Post about the incident. These charges have been held to be proved by the inquiry officer on the basis of the evidence available in the case.
7. It is trite law that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary cases is limited. The Tribunal cannot act as an appellate forum and appreciate the evidence. The Tribunal may interfere only when it comes to the conclusion that it is a case of no evidence, or when the due procedure, as prescribed in the rules, has not been followed, or the order is perverse, or when the punishment is shocking to judicial conscience. In the instant case, evidence is available, on the basis of which the disciplinary authority has held the charges to be proved, on the basis of the report of the inquiry officer. Due procedure, as per the rules applicable in the case, has been followed. The disciplinary authority, in his wisdom, has decided on the punishment, which is not excessive and such is not the Applicants case. In these circumstances we do not think it necessary to interfere in the case.
8. The OA is dismissed for want of merit. No costs.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) (L.K. Joshi)
Member (J) Vice Chairman (A)
/sd/