Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pramodh Kumar vs Comm. Of Police on 29 March, 2023
1
Item No. 17 O.A. No. 1482/2021
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 1482/2021
Reserved on : 07.03.2023
Pronounced on : 29.03.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
Pramodh Kumar
Sub Inspector (Exe.), Delhi Police
PIS No. 16140335
Aged 43 years
S/o Shri Narayana Rao
R/o D.No. 16-1-1/1, Laxman Nagar
Opposite Nabha Art Gallery
Tanuku: 534 211, West Godavari District
Andhra Pradesh
Group „C‟ (presently posted at III Battalion
DAP, Vikaspuri, Delhi).
..Applicant
(Applicant in person)
Versus
1. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police
East District
I.P. Extension, Delhi.
2. The Joint Commissioner of Police
Eastern Range
Delhi Police Headquarters
Jai Singh Road
New Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Yadav)
2
Item No. 17 O.A. No. 1482/2021
ORDER
The applicant is working as Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police. On 24.09.2017, while he was posted at Police Station Shakarpur, an FIR was registered under Section 379 IPC and subsequently amended to Section 380/457 IPC by the initial I.O. This was re-assigned to the applicant for further investigation. On scrutiny, he found commission of various other cognizable offences under Sections 420/406 IPC and, accordingly, Sections 420/406 IPC were added to the existing FIR after due deliberations and approval of SHO on 10.11.2017. It is submitted that in terms of the practice of seeking approval of the DCP/East in such cases, he discussed the same with the SHO, who turned it down. Subsequently, the said FIR was forwarded to the Joint CP as per the procedure on 31.01.2018. The applicant was issued an explanation notice dated 05.03.2018 alleging that he has not sought the prior approval of the concerned DCP before registration of FIR under Section 420 IPC. The applicant submitted his explanation on 10.03.2018. A show cause notice was issued by the Disciplinary Authority on 09.04.2018. The applicant submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 23.04.2018 stating that this matter did not 3 Item No. 17 O.A. No. 1482/2021 relate to land dispute and every step in the investigation was taken with the approval of the concerned SHO. The Disciplinary Authority passed the order of „Censure‟ on 15.09.2018 indicating that he took advantage of the fact that e-FIR can be registered online and afterwards sections of cheating were easily added, without knowledge and taking approval of the concerned DCP. Aggrieved by this order of Disciplinary Authority, he filed an appeal on 13.10.2018 indicating that Standing Order No.41/2012 does not imply to take approval of the DCP in each and every case. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 04.09.2019 rejected his appeal. Aggrieved by the actions on the part of the respondents, he has filed the present O.A. seeking the following relief(s):
"i) To quash the order of censure awarded by Addl.DCP/East District, Delhi Police, vide impugned order No.5526-34/HAP (P-II)/E dated 15.9.2018 being irrational and illegal.
ii) To quash the rejection of appeal by Joint Commissioner of Police/Eastern Range, Delhi Police vide impugned order No.3854-59/SO/ER (AC-II) dated 04.9.2019 being irrational and illegal.
iii) To allow the O.A.
iv) To impose suitable costs on the respondents to recompense for the expenses incurred and injury suffered by the applicant for carrying out duties according to the procedure established by law and strictly following the orders of the immediate superior officer (SHO).
v) To recommend suitable departmental action against the erring officers who discharged their 4 Item No. 17 O.A. No. 1482/2021 decision making duties with gross negligence and carelessness disregarding basic procedures."
Primarily, he is seeking quashing of the order of penalty of „Censure‟ awarded by the Disciplinary Authority dated 15.09.2018 and the rejection of his appeal dated 04.09.2019.
2. It is the contention of the applicant that he had added Sections 420/406 IPC in the said FIR with the approval of the SHO and, therefore, he was not responsible for failing to take any required approval and, thus, the order of „Censure‟ passed against him is irrational and illegal.
3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit opposing the O.A. It is submitted that the applicant added Sections 420/406 IPC in the said FIR after discussion with the SHO. Further, he failed to take prior approval of the DCP of the District and, thus, he has done so with the intention of by-passing the existing instructions in terms of Standing Order No. 41/2012. It is also submitted that he was duly issued a show cause notice by the Competent Authority after considering his representation and a lenient view was taken by imposing the punishment of „Censure‟. The Appellate Authority considered his appeal and rejected the 5 Item No. 17 O.A. No. 1482/2021 same by passing a detailed and speaking order. It is submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the Disciplinary and the Appellate Authority.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon two judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Regional Manager, UPSRTC vs. Hoti Lal & Anr. dated 11.02.2003 and in B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India & Ors. dated 01.11.1995, in which it is clearly held that the Disciplinary Authority is the competent authority for passing order of punishment and the scope of judicial review is very limited in such cases.
5. Heard the applicant in person and Mr. Amit Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents.
6. A Show cause notice was issued to the applicant on the allegation that e-FIR No.ED-SP-001817 dated 06.09.2017 under Section 379 IPC was registered in PS Shakarpur. The same was entrusted to ASI Satpal Singh, who added Sections 380/457 IPC in the case. Subsequently, the case was further assigned to the applicant, who added Sections 406/420 IPC in the said case on 02.11.2017, after discussion with the 6 Item No. 17 O.A. No. 1482/2021 SHO, PS Shakarpur. Whereas as per the Standing Order No.41/2012, it was necessary to take prior approval of the DCP of the District before registering an FIR under Section 420 of IPC in certain cases. Thus, this was considered a serious lapse on the part of the applicant and his explanation was called vide letter dated 05.03.2018. A reply was submitted to the explanation notice by the applicant on 11.03.2018. It was noted that the applicant added Section 420 IPC without the approval of the concerned DCP and his explanation was not found satisfactory. In terms of the procedure, a show cause notice was served upon the applicant. He was also called for personal hearing and heard in the O.R. by the Disciplinary Authority on 11.09.2018. His explanation and also his submission during the oral hearing were considered by the Disciplinary Authority, who was of the opinion that the applicant took advantage of the fact that e-FIR can be registered online and afterwards Sections can be added without knowledge and taking approval of the DCP. The matter was already in Court under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Despite that IO added sections of cheating in the case, which according to the Disciplinary Authority indicates that this modus operandi adopted by the applicant is a clear case wherein the Standing Orders are by-passed. It also 7 Item No. 17 O.A. No. 1482/2021 casts serious doubts on the intention of the Investigating Officer. The Disciplinary Authority confirmed the show cause notice issued to the applicant and his conduct was censured. The concerned para of the order of the Disciplinary Authority is as under:
"The subject Show Cause Notice was served upon SI Pramodh Kumar, No. D/5326 and he submitted his written reply to the subject SCN. He was also heard in O.R. by the undersigned on 11.09.18. In his reply, the SI pleaded that after scrutiny of the contents of the FIR, statements of the complainant & grievances of the accused in totality, no tint of dispute over land was ascertained. Furthermore, the opinion of the SI was also concurred by the Chief Investigation Officer. In light of the above, his explanation dated 11.03.18 holds good. The undersigned has carefully gone through the written/oral submissions as well as the record available on the file and found his reply rot tangible as all his submissions are absurd. This a clear cut case wherein the I.O. took advantage of the fact that E-FIR can be registered online & afterwards sections of cheating are easily added without the knowledge of and without taking written approval of DCP. The matter was already in court under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C as told by I.O. himself. Despite that I.O. added sections of cheating in the case knowing very well that it is a matter relating to a flat whose ownership/ possession is under dispute. This „Modus Operandi' being adopted by I.O. is a clear case wherein the Standing Orders are bypassed. It also casts serious doubts on the intentions of the Investigating Officer. This is a deliberate attempt to bypass directions of S.O. No. 41/2012. In view of aforementioned facts, the Show Cause Notice issued to 1.0./SI Pramodh Kumar, No. D/5326 is confirmed and his conduct is hereby censured."
7. The applicant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority, who passed a detailed order dated 04.09.2019 and rejected the same. The operative para of the same is as under:
8Item No. 17 O.A. No. 1482/2021
"Following the appeal, I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant. The scrutiny of the record on file has revealed that the appellant being I.O. of the case took advantage of the fact that E-FIR can be registered online and afterwards sections of cheating are easily added without the knowledge and taking written approval of DCP. The matter was already subjudice u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C and the appellant added section of cheating in the case knowing very well that it is a matter relating to a flat whose ownership/ possession is under dispute. This „Modus Operandi‟ being adopted by an I.O. is a clear case wherein the Standing Orders are bypassed. It also casts serious doubts on the intentions of the Investigating Officer. This is a deliberate attempt to bypass directions of S.O. No. 41/2012.
Therefore, I find no merit in the submissions of the appellant and the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby, rejected being devoid of merit and substance."
8. The applicant in his O.A. in para 4.1 mentions that "The unofficial practice of seeking approval from DCP/East in cheating cases was also deliberated upon by the applicant but turned down by the SHO opining that the instant case does not need an approval as such". He has further indicated in para 4.6 that "It was also submitted that standing order No.41/2012 does not imply to take approval of DCP in each and every case. Further, it was also submitted that the applicant was not the initial IO of the case, nor any complaint was initially marked to him for enquiry. It was only after the initial IO discussed with the SHO various allegations in the complaint, the complaints/FIR was marked to the undersigned for further investigations by the SHO." 9 Item No. 17 O.A. No. 1482/2021
9. In his appeal annexed as Annexure A7, the applicant has reiterated that Sections 406/420 IPC were added to the existing FIR after directions/discussions with SHO/ Shakarpur on 02.11.2017. It is also mentioned by the applicant that since Standing Order No.41/2012 does not imply to take approval of DCP in each and every case, it was opined that the instant case does not need an approval as such. This is a clear affirmation that the applicant added Sections 406/420 IPC in the said FIR without obtaining the required permission, which has been viewed seriously by the Disciplinary Authority. The punishment of „Censure‟ has been imposed and upheld by the Appellate Authority.
10. I have considered the relied upon judgments. In B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India & Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 749, it was held as under:
"The next question is whether the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Orissa Ors. v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra [AIR 1963 SC 779] held that having regard to the gravity of the established misconduct, the punishing authority had the power and jurisdiction to impose punishment. The penalty was not open to review by the High Court under Article 226. If the High Court reached a finding that there was some evidence to reach the conclusion, it became unassessable. The order of the Governor who had jurisdiction and unrestricted power to determine 10 Item No. 17 O.A. No. 1482/2021 the appropriate punishment was final. The High Court had no jurisdiction to direct the Governor to review the penalty. It was further held that if the order was supported on any finding as to substantial misconduct for which punishment "can lawfully be imposed", it was not for the Court to consider whether that ground alone would have weighed with the authority in dismissing the public servant. The court had no jurisdiction, if the findings prima facie made out a case of misconduct, to direct the Governor to reconsider the order of penalty."
11. The law is, therefore, well settled with regard to the scope of judicial review by the Tribunals and the Courts in disciplinary cases, specifically regarding the quantum of punishment.
12. It is evident that in the instant case, the respondents have taken necessary action on the allegations against the applicant by seeking his explanation and thereafter issuing a show cause notice. His representations have been duly considered and order of penalty of „Censure‟ was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The applicant was also heard personally in the OR by the Disciplinary Authority before passing the said order. The same was upheld by rejecting the appeal of the applicant by the Appellate Authority. Thus, the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
11Item No. 17 O.A. No. 1482/2021
13. The claim of the applicant is not tenable. The O.A. is thus devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) Member (A) /jyoti/