Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sanjeev Kumar Tomar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 29 September, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. No.1291/2010
New Delhi this the 29th day of September, 2010
HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A)
Sanjeev Kumar Tomar
S/o Shri Jagdish Kumar
R/o B-1/1167 Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-70. ..Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Shyam Babu.
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Through its Chief Secretary,
Players Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
2. Dy. Commissioner of Police,
West District,
P.S. Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi.
3 Joint Commissioner of Police,
Southern Range,
Police Headquarters,
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi. ..Respondents
By Advocate : Shri Ram Kanwar.
ORDER
By Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Applicant has challenged order dated 4.7.2009 whereby his conduct has been censured (page 15) and order dated 16.10.2009 whereby his appeal has been rejected.
2. It is submitted by the applicant that he was posted as SHO, PS, Paschim Vihar, West District, Delhi. On 3.2.2009, a PCR call was received at Police Station Paschim Vihar alleging that one Ms. Priya, a maid servant was beaten by her landlady. The call was marked by the applicant to Head Constable Depender Singh vide D.D. No.25. He took Ms. Priya to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital where she was medically examined but her statement could not be recorded. Head Constable Depender Singh reported back vide DD No.70-B that the call may be kept pending till the result of the MLC was declared by the Hospital. The next day, i.e., on 4.2.2009 the applicant being SHO of the Police Station, Paschim Vihar deputed ASI Mahinder Singh vide DD No. 25-A for the purposes of investigation. He recorded the statement of Ms. Priya but she stated she did not want any action to be taken against the landlady. Ms. Priya was discharged from the Hospital on 10.2.2009, but the result of the MLC could not be given by the Hospital. Thereafter, some NGO caught hold of Ms. Priya and brought her to the Police Station on 17.2.2009 with the request that she wanted action to be taken against her landlady. At this stage her detailed statement was recorded at the Police Station on 17.2.2009 and FIR No.58/2009 was registered at the Police Station under Sections 323/342 IPC and the landlady Mrs. Nitu and her husband Jagrpeet Singh were also arrested on 19.2.2009. On 20.2.2009, the hospital described the injury as grievous hurt in the MLC, therefore, on 20.2.2009 Section 325 IPC was added in the FIR. In spite of it, a show cause notice dated 25.3.2009 was issued to the applicant for censure. Applicant gave a detailed reply explaining all the facts as stated above, but without considering his reply, the disciplinary authority awarded the punishment of censure to the applicant on 4.7.2009. Being aggrieved, applicant filed a detailed appeal but that was also rejected on 16.10.2009 in a cryptic manner.
3. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that since MLC was given on 20.2.2009 whereupon Section 325 was immediately added in the FIR, there is no justification to censure the conduct of the applicant. In any case, as an SHO, he had instructed the subordinates to investigate the matter and if they did not do anything properly, applicant cannot be made to suffer for the lapses of the subordinate staff. Counsel for the applicant also submitted that Depender Singhs appeal has been allowed who was deputed by him for investigation, therefore, the OA may be allowed.
4. Respondents have opposed this OA. They have stated that show cause notice was issued to the applicant Inspector Sanjeev Kumar Tomar on 25.3.2009 on the allegations that a news item was published in Hindi Daily local newspaper that a maid servant had been badly beaten by the landlady Smt. Neetu but in spite of matter having been reported to PS Paschim Vihar, no action was taken by the local police. On enquiry conducted by the ACP (PG Cell) West Delhi, it revealed that the said maid servant Ms. Priya was living in pathetic conditions due to the atrocities of her landlady Mrs. Neetu. She was assaulted on 3.2.2009 resulting in PCR Call being made which was attended by Head Constable Depender Singh, PS Paschim Vihar vide DD No. 25 dated 3.2.2009 and Priya was got medically examined at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital vide MLC No. 1247/2009. However, on the statement of Priya, the Head Constable kept the call pending till the result of MLC. On 4.2.2009 ASI Mahinder Singh was deputed for further investigation of the case but he also did not take proper action except recording the statement of the victim, who was under the pressure of the landlady. The ASI neither recorded the statement of neighbours nor obtained the report of MLC and he also failed to verify the facts which clearly show that the matter was not handled professionally from the beginning either by Head Constable Depender Singh or ASI Mahinder Singh or the SHO Paschim Vihar (the applicant herein).
5. They have further stated that the applicant was specifically told by the disciplinary authority to look into the matter and find out the truth after news item had appeared in the newspaper in Hindi Daily but still he did not pay any attention in this regard and left everything to Head Constable and ASI. They have thus stated that Inspector Sanjeev Kumar Tomar being the then SHO failed to keep proper supervision over the staff and did not bother to comply with the instructions of senior officers for the reasons best known to him. They have stated it was the duty of a police officer to conduct local enquiry, talk to the caller, and examine the MLC to find out the nature/extent of injury. But nothing was done except recording the statement of victim stating that she does not want any action. Not taking legal action in a case when victim was wrongly confined and beaten up badly was a serious lapse and applicant was responsible for overall lack of supervision. They have further stated that on 30.6.2009 applicant was called in the Orderly Room but he did not appear despite message given to him. The applicant has thus rightly been censured for his lack of supervision. They have thus prayed that the OA may be dismissed.
6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the pleading as well.
7. Admittedly, applicant was the SHO of Police Station, Paschim Vihar at the relevant time when a PCR call was received to the effect that a maid servant, namely, Ms. Priya r/o West Dirajpur, West Bengal working in House No.G-2/2 58-C owned by Gurpreet Sing and his wife Smt Neetu had been badly beaten by the landlady. The DCP had personally spoken to the SHO when matter was reported in the newspaper on 3.2.2009 to look into the matter. However, the facts which are narrated above show that the SHO initially deputed Head Constable Depender Singh who took the maid servant to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital for getting her medically examined vide MLC No. 1247/2009 but kept the call pending till the result of MLC vide DD No.30-B dated 3.2.2009. The next day, i.e., 4.2.2009 SHO had deputed ASI Mahinder Singh for further investigation. Admittedly, neither HC Depender Singh nor ASI Mahinder Singh recorded the statements of neighbours, nor did they try to find out, who had called the PCR nor tried to inspect the site where the beating was alleged to have taken place. Had applicant, who was the SHO supervised the progress of the case, he could have guided the subordinates. It is thus clear applicant had failed to supervise the progress.
8. Counsel for the applicant had submitted that Depender Singhs appeal was allowed, applicant is also entitled for the same treatment. However, appellate authority has noted in the order that Priya was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital by Head Constable Depender Singh on 3.2.2009 at 4.40 p.m. The full MLC report was given only on 20/2/2009 declaring the injuries to be grievous in nature, therefore, HC Depender Singh had returned the DD entry on 3.2.2009 stating therein that the result of MLC should be awaited. The next day, i.e., 4.2.2009 the investigation was handed over to ASI Mahinder Singh, therefore, role of HC Depender Singh had come to an end on 3.2.2009 itself. It was in these circumstances held by the appellate authority that he cannot be blamed because the case remained with him only till 8.10 a.m. the next day, i.e., 4.2.2010. We would agree with the reasoning of the appellate authority. As far as ASI Mahinder Singh is concerned, he was deputed for investigating the matter on 4.2.2009 but he neither went to the scene of occurrence nor recorded the statement of the neighbours nor any other person in the same vicinity to know the facts. He simply recorded that Ms. Priya did not want any action against the landlady without realising that she could be saying so under some pressure. Since the incident was reported in the newspaper, DCP had personally directed the applicant, who happened to be SHO of PS Paschim Vihar to look into the matter. It was his duty to find out the truth and take appropriate action in time. If ASI Mahinder Singh had not recorded statement of the neighbours and other persons at the site, he ought to have instructed the ASI to visit the site to do the needful for finding out the truth but neither ASI Mahinder Singh nor the applicant carried out this exercise, therefore, respondents have rightly censured the applicant for lack of supervision of his subordinates.
8. In view of above discussion, we find no illegality in the orders passed by the respondents as they have explained the facts in detail. The OA is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA) (MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Rakesh