Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Krishan Chand Dahiya vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Others Through on 12 May, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI O.A. No. 262/2010 M.A. No.1363/2011 New Delhi, this the 12th day of May, 2011. HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) HONBLE DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) Shri Krishan Chand Dahiya S/o Shri Munshi Ram R/o L-25, Sadatpur Extension, Delhi. ..Applicant By Advocate: Shri M.K. Bhardwaj. Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others through 1. The Commissioner of Police, PHQ, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Joint Commissioner of Police, PHQ, New Delhi Range, Delhi. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, East District, Delhi. ..Respondents By Advocate: Mrs. P.K. Gupta. ORDER
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Applicant has challenged order dated 20.12.2006 (page 21 to 23), order dated 23.12.2009 (page 24) and order dated 10.1.2006 (page 25) with a further direction to the respondents to restore his increments and pay all the arrears.
2. It is submitted by the applicant that on 10.1.2006 a departmental enquiry was initiated against the applicant on the basis of allegations made by the attacking party.
3. In the enquiry, copy of CD of Sansani or report submitted by the SHO was not supplied to the applicant thus violating principles of natural justice. All these points were taken by the applicant in his written defense statement, yet without considering them, the Inquiry Officer gave his report holding the charge is proved against him. In the representation again applicant took all the contentions but ignoring the same, disciplinary authority passed the order dated 20.12.2006 withholding one increment permanently for 4 years. The period of suspension from 20.10.2005 to 16.4.2006 was also decided as not spent on duty. Being aggrieved, he filed an appeal but that was also rejected by a non-speaking order dated 23.12.2009.
4. Respondents have opposed this OA. They have submitted, departmental enquiry was initiated against SI Krishan Chand Dahiya, No.D/3885 (PIS No.28740430) (hereinafter called the Applicant) under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, vide Order No.501-30/HAP (P-I)/East dated 10.1.2006, on the allegations that while he was posted at PS Mayur Vihar on 13.10.2005, a call vide DD No.26-A, dated 13.10.2005 was marked to SI Krishan Chand Dahiya. There was a quarrel between Zishan Haider and Mazid in which Zishan sustained injuries over his head and was medically examined at LSB Hospital vide MLC No.9760/2005 and the doctor opined the injury as U/O Blunt. SI Krishan Chand Dahiya kept it pending vide DD No.36-A dated 13.10.2005. He did not deposit the MLC of the injured for final result and also did not record the statement of the injured, Zishan Haider and called both the parties along with the mediator Ismail in the Police Station and made them to compromise the matter and money was also demanded & accepted by the applicant SI Krishan Chand Dahiya from the mother of Mazid, the person against whom the complaint was made through mediator Ismail for making them compromise the matter. The money being accepted by SI K.C. Dahiya through the mediator, Ismail, was recorded by the decoy of Sansani and same recording was telecasted on Star News Channel in their programme Sansani on 19.10.2005.
5. In the enquiry full opportunity was given to the applicant and orders were passed after considering the evidence which had come on record, therefore, the OA calls for no interference. The OA may be dismissed.
6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings. Perusal of the records show departmental enquiry was initiated by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, East District by observing as follows:-
It is alleged against SI Krishan Chand Dahiya No.D/4885 that while posted at PS Mayur Vihar, on 13.10.2005, a call vide DD No.26-A dated 13.10.2005 was marked to SI Krishan Chand Dahiya. There was a quarrel between Zishan Haider and Mazid in which Zishan sustained injuries over his head and was medically examined at LBS Hospital vide MLC No.9760/2005 and the Doctor opined the injury as U/O Blunt. SI Krishan Chand Dahiya kept it pending vide DD No.36-A dated 13.10.2005. He did not deposit the MLC of injured for final result and also not recorded the statement of injured Zishan Haider and called both the parties along with the mediator Ismail in the Police Station and made them to compromise and money was also demanded & accepted from the mother of Mazid alleged person by SI Krishan Chand Dahiya through mediator Ismail for making compromise. Money accepted by SI K.C. Dahiya through mediator Ismail was recorded by the decoy of SANSANI and same recording was telecasted on Star News Channel in their programme Sansani on 19.10.2005.
The above act on the part of SI Krishan Chand Dahiya No.D/4885 amount to gross misconduct, negligence, mala fide intention, highly irresponsible and dereliction in the discharge of his official duty, which renders him liable to be dealt with departmentally under the provision of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.
7. Along with summary of allegations, following documents were listed as relied upon documents:-
1. DD No.26-A dated 13.10.2005 PS Mayur Vihar.
2. DD No.36-A dated 13.10.2005, PS Mayur Vihar.
3. Report of SHO/Mayur Vihar No.2784/R/SHO/Mayur Vihar dated 19.10.2005.
4. DD No.12-A dated 20.10.2005, PS Mayur Vihar.
5. Copy of Duty Roster of upper subordinates dated 15.10.2005, PS Mayur Vihar.
6. Copy of compromise dated 15.10.2005.
7. Copy of CD of SANSANI programme of Star News Channel dated 19.10.2005.
8. Copy of MLC No.9760/2005 dated 13.10.2005.
and following were listed witnesses to prove the charge.
8. Perusal of the records show all these documents were provided to the applicant. It is thus wrong to suggest that CD was not given to him. Similarly copy of SHOs report was also given to the applicant. SHO had appeared as a witness to prove his report and full opportunity was given to the applicant to cross examine the above witness, therefore, it cannot be stated that applicant was right to defend himself.
9. Counsel for the applicant strenuously argued that the CD was a Doctored CD and no one had come to prove the same. However, perusal of applicants own written statement shows he has mentioned as follows on page 5:-
In the entire episode it is nowhere mentioned that complainant party had called the Sansani people after a demand of money had been made. It is, therefore, clear that Sansani people were called even before there was any demand of money from Ismail or the injured party. Sansani people were curious enough to make a film for the benefit of their programme. Apparently a curiosity was there behind shooting the compromise talks. Once their purpose is served they back out and do not want to figure in the subsequent proceedings.
Second important factor which your good self has to keep in mind that nowhere in the recorded evidence or in the recorded CD the demand of money from the applicant has been shown. What the applicant could do if their own man was exploiting them at the back of applicant. Equally important is the factor that in the recorded CD it has nowhere been shown that applicant had obtained any money from anybody.
10. From above, it is clear that CD was played in his presence. He had not disputed the fact that he figured in the CD. What transpired had thus been recorded. Who had recorded the CD or handled the camera is not relevant because this is not a criminal trial. In disciplinary proceedings we have only to see probability of evidence. In the CD which was played by us in the chamber in the presence of both the counsel, it clearly shows that the applicant told the lady who was offering money to him that he will not touch the money. He kept saying give the money to the other man (Ismail) and he would take it from him. In any case, even if the CD is ignored, statement of PW-4 becomes relevant. PW-4 is mother of Majid who had stated as follows in the departmental enquiry:-
11. In cross examination by defense, the question posed was as follows:-
To which she specifically answered as follows:-
12. This clearly shows that the CD was only taken as a corroborative evidence because what PW-4 had stated is further proved by the recording of CD.
13. From above, it is clear that there is some evidence on record. The law is well settled now that so long there is some evidence on record the court should not interfere in the disciplinary matters and what punishment should be imposed should be left to the authorities.
14. Courts can interfere only if it is a case of no evidence or the findings recorded by the IO are perverse. In the instant case neither it can be stated that findings are perverse nor it is a case of no evidence.
15. In view of above, we find no good ground to interfere in the case. 16. Counsel for the applicant has filed MA No. 1363/2011 after the OA was reserved for hearing with a prayer to send the CD to any Government Laboratory to test the genuineness of the same because the CD is not audible and sentences recorded are incomplete. We do not think there is any necessity to send the CD for finding out its genuineness because apart from CD, PW-4 has clearly stated that SI Dahiya told her to give the money to Ismail and he would take it from him later. CD only corroborated what she had stated. Moreover, this is not a criminal trial. To substantiate his contention, counsel for the applicant placed reliance on judgment dated 17.9.2010 passed by Honble High in Writ Petition No.6293/2010. Perusal of same shows the facts of the case were absolutely different and it does not advance the case of the applicant in any way. The reliance placed is wrong. The MA is accordingly dismissed. No other point was argued.
17. Since we do not find any merit in the OA, the same is dismissed. No costs.
(DR. A.K. MISHRA) (MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Rakesh