Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Si Rajender Bhardwaj vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 9 December, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.4374/2010 New Delhi, this the 9th day of December, 2011 Honble Mr. Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) SI Rajender Bhardwaj, PIS NO.28740609, R/o 6-A, Amar Colony, Nangloi, Delhi-41. . Applicant (By Advocate : Shri Anil Singal) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Commissioner of Police, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Special Commissioner of Police, (Armed Forces) PHQ, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. D.C.P. (7th Bn. DAP), Through Commissioner of Police, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocate : Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi) : O R D E R : Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) :
By this OA, Shri Rajender Bhardwaj working as SI in Delhi Police has assailed the order of initiating departmental enquiry dated 28.8.2006 (Annexure-A1), the summary of allegations indicated therein at Annexure-A2, findings of the Enquiry Officer (Annexure-A3), the order of punishment imposing forfeiture of two years of approved service passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 30.6.2009 (Annexure-A4) and the Appellate Authority rejecting his appeal vide order dated 10.3.2010 (Annexure-A5). He has come before this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking to quash and set aside those orders and to direct the respondents to restore to him his original service including arrears of pay along with all consequential benefits like promotion and seniority.
2. Brief facts of the case would disclose that a Departmental Enquiry (DE) was initiated against the applicant. It is alleged against the applicant, while posted at Police Station Prasad Nagar, Central Distt., Delhi a criminal appeal No.400/2006 filed by the accused Gyaneshwar @ Jojo S/o Purushotam in the case (FIR No.244/05 u/s 392/397 IPC, PS Prasad Nagar), submitted a misleading report on 16.6.2006 to the SHO/PS Prasad Nagar as well as Honble High Court of Delhi that the father of Gyaneshwar @ Jojo is dead and no other person is there to make arrangements for his sisters marriage. Since Honble High Court was not satisfied with the report so next date for hearing was fixed for 19.6.2006, and SHO/PS, Prasad Nagar asked the applicant to conduct a complete enquiry regarding the family of Gyaneshwar @ Jojo and to submit a report by 18.6.2006 i.e., a day prior to the hearing of the matter in Honble High Court of Delhi. However, he did not submit further enquiry report to SHO/PS Prasad Nagar till 18.6.2006. He was again directed by SHO/PS Prasad Nagar to submit the report timely otherwise it would be intimated to the senior officers. A DD entry to this effect was made by the SHO/PS Prasad Nagar in the Roznamcha of PS Prasad Nagar vide DD No.9-A dated 18.6.06 at 8.05 A.M. Despite these directions to conduct further enquiry and submit report, the applicant failed to do so. He was also detailed for bus checking at 7.00 PM but he did not perform the duty assigned to him, for which he was marked absent vide DD No.38-D, dated 18.6.2006 at 7.45 PM. He resumed his duty at 8.10 AM on 19.6.2006 vide DD No.16-B after absenting himself for a period of more than 13 hours. It is further alleged that he deliberately disobeyed the direction of SHO/PS Prasad Nagar to complete the enquiry in the above-mentioned High Court matter. The case was marked to SI Suraj Bhan by SHO/PS Prasad Nagar on 18.6.2006 for enquiry who reported that the father of convict Gyaneshwar @ Jojo, namely Shri Purshottam is alive and apart from father, his three paternal uncles and two maternal uncles are assisting Sh. Purshottam in making arrangements for marariage of Gyaneshwars sister Renuka which was to be solemnized on 29.6.2006. Hence, the report submitted by the applicant was found to be false which could have facilitated the accused Gyaneshwar @ Jojo, a convict in case FIR No.244/05 u/s 293/397 IPC, PS Prasad Nagar, Delhi in getting interim bail from Honble High Court of Delhi. The applicant has recorded only two statements of neighbours namely Smt. Manpreet w/o Jashpreet and Smt. Renu w/o Narender in which no where they stated that Purshottam the father of Gyaneshwar @ Jojo was dead. There is no statement of any person to prove that father of the convict Gyaneshwar @ Jojo is dead. It is further alleged that the applicant on his own prepared a false report indicating therein that Purshottam the father of the convict Gyaneshwar @ Jojo is dead. This wrong report could have resulted in grant of interim bail to convict Gyaneshwar @ Jojo. It is further stated that the applicant has deliberately tried to mislead Honble High Court and as well as the department with ill motive to help the accused. Hence, following three misconducts have been alleged : (1) He has deliberately submitted a false report to Honble High Court of Delhi on 16.6.2006 which could have only illegally helped the robbery convict Gyaneshwar @ Jojo, (2) He has willfully defied the legal order of SHO/PS Prasad Nagar to conduct further enquiry into the matter of Gyaneshwar @ Jojo. This he has done despite a written warning in the Daily Diary on 18.6.2006, and (3) He has willfully absented himself from duty on 18.6.2006 when he was required to go for bus checking at 7 PM as per the duty Roster of PS Prasad Nagar. This absence could have just one motive, that despite the directions to conduct further complete enquiry, he still wanted to mislead the Honble High Court of Delhi on 19.6.2006. The above act on the part of the applicant was considered as gross misconduct, indulgence in malpractices by producing misleading facts to Delhi High Court and his seniors. He was proceeded with departmentally under the provisions of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. The applicant was placed under suspension for the above allegations. The Enquiry Officer having conducted the DE proceedings and after examining the three prosecution witnesses and taking into account the defence taken by the applicant submitted the charge to the Disciplinary Authority who has framed charges vide order dated 25.7.2006 almost on the same lines as those of the allegations. On receipt of the charges, the applicant did not admit the same and submitted his defence. In the meantime, the Enquiry Officer was transferred and a fresh Enquiry Officer was appointed who conducted the enquiry in the matter. The applicant produced only one defence witness (Smt. Manorama Devi). Further, recording her evidence, the enquiry Officer examined the whole issue and came to the conclusion holding the charges as proved. The enquiry Officers conclusion reads as follows:-
CONCLUSION To sum up the whole discussion based on proper evaluation of evidence on DE file adduced during enquiry, I conclude that The Charge no.1 that SI Rajender Bhardwaj, deliberately submitted a false report in the honble High Court of Delhi on 16.06.06, which could have illegally helped the robbery convict Gyaneshwar @ Jojo to get the bail, is proved beyond any doubt.
The charge no.2 that SI Rajender Bhardwaj willfully defied the legal order of SHO Prasad Nagar to conduct further enquiry into the matter of Gyaneshwar @ Jojo despite a written warning in the Daily Diary on 18.06.06.
and The charge no.3, that SI Rajender Bhardwaj, willfully absented himself from duty on 18.06.06 when he was required for bus checking at 7 PM as per the duty Roster of PS, Prasad Nagar, in the context of the statement of PW 2, are not proved.
3. The Disciplinary Authority having gone through the applicants representation, found that the applicant submitted his report to the SHO Prasad Nagar which was filed before the Honble High Court that the father of the convict Shri Gyaneshwar had died and there was nobody to make arrangements for the marriage of the convict Gyaneshwars sister. The Honble High Court further ordered to submit detailed report and the applicant was directed to conduct the detailed enquiry into the matter but he did not submit the same for a long time and was absent from duty. Subsequently, the enquiry was marked to one SI Shri Suraj Bhan at the last moment where it was proved that the applicant submitted mis-leading report to the Honble High Court on 16.6.2006. The incorrect report was to the extent that convict Gyaneshwars father was not dead though the report was filed that his father was dead. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter considering the pros and cons of the case passed final orders imposing the penalty of forfeiture of two years of service. Thereafter, the applicant has preferred an appeal to the Special Commissioner of Police who having gone through the appeal and the facts of the case found that there was no reason to interfere with the punishment of the Disciplinary Authority and accordingly, the appeal was rejected. In this back drop of the case, the applicant has come to the Tribunal in the instant OA seeking the relief(s) as indicated within.
4. Shri Anil Singal, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there was only one charge which was proved against the applicant i.e. filing of false report before the Honble High Court on 16.6.2006 mentioning therein that father of the convict Gyaneshwar was dead whereas he was alive. It is stated that the applicant enquired the matter again on 17.6.2006 and came to know and told SI Suraj Bhan that the convicts father was alive. The plea taken is that the mother of the convict i.e. Smt. Manorama Devi who was telling everybody that her husband was like a dead man for her since he was not living with her since 1987. He further contends that the charges do not have any malafide intention against the applicant. The defence witness Smt. Manorama Devi deposed before the Enquiry Officer that she was telling everybody that her husband was like dead man since he was not living with her since 1987, on the basis of which the applicant submitted his report before the Honble High Court on 16.6.2006. Further, he submits that it is the applicant who brought to the notice that the convicts father was alive and mother of the convict was mentioning like that. It is Shri Anil Singals contention that defence taken by the applicant for the charge was not appropriately dealt with in the IOs report. In this context, he places his reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Inspector Prem Chand Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others [2007 (4) SCC 566], where it has been held that innocent mistake cannot be treated as a misconduct and applicants case comes within the ambit of innocent mistake for which he should have been exonerated.
5. Opposing the grounds taken by the applicant, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit on 27.7.2011. Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi, learned counsel representing the respondents would submit that it was an admitted case as the evidence available are applicants own document given to Honble High Court. It was contended that had the applicant felt that the issue was already pre-judged and that the same was very evident from the order initiating the DE, he should have challenged the same at that stage. On the other hand, he subjected himself to the enquiry. As such the said contention of the applicant is not admissible under law. He was granted full opportunity and even produced a defence witness Smt. Manorama Devi and took plea that Smt. Manorama Devis husband and the father of the convict Gyaneshwar was dead which was filed before the Honble High Court. This fact being absolutely false, it is not denied and rather admitted by the applicant even in the present OA to the extent of giving misleading and false information to the Honble High Court. The misconduct is well established against the applicant. Mrs. Oberois contention is that the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer have followed the principles of natural justice and have imposed the penalty which is proportionate to the proved misconduct.
6. Having heard the contentions of the rival parties, we also perused the pleadings.
7. Admittedly, the applicant has furnished to the Honble High Court of Delhi a false report dated 16.06.2006, as per which he has reported that father of the convict Gyaneshwar was dead, on the other hand, subsequent enquiries disclosed the statement given by the applicant to the High Court as absolutely false, as the father of the convict Gyaneshwar is alive. The plea taken by the applicant subsequently to his defence was that the mother of Gyaneshwar @ Jojo i.e. Smt. Manorama Devi had stated that her husband was dead as he was not living with her for so many years. Even if, this seems to have been stated by Smt. Manorama Devi, that does not lead the applicant to give a statement to the Honble High Court that husband of Smt. Manorama Devi and father of the convict Gyaneshwar was dead. As the convict Gyaneswar was trying to go on bail to attend his sisters marriage, the false statement given by the applicant undoubtedly was misleading and uncalled for and that too for a cause which would not have been permissible. Further, the allegation that he has given false information that there is none to look after the marriage of convicts sister was also not true as it was found that there were relations of the convict who were making necessary arrangements for his sisters marriage. It is undoubtedly admitted fact that the applicant had deliberately given wrong information to the Honble High Court and subsequently, absented from his duty. It is noted that the principles of natural justice have been followed by all the authorities concerned. The punishment inflicted on the applicant is proportionate to the proved misconduct.
8. Taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the competent Disciplinary Authority, Enquiry Officer and the Appellate Authority have given their respective findings and orders in accordance with law and punishment of forfeiture of two years of approved service passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 30.6.2009 and the orders of Appellate Authority dated 10.3.2010 in rejecting his appeal are procedurally correct and legally sustainable.
9. In the circumstances, we do not find any merits in the case and accordingly, we dismiss the OA leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (V. K. Bali) Member (A) Chairman /rk/