Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sashi Chandra Sharma vs Comm. Of Police on 4 October, 2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi
O.A.No.1867/2012
Order Reserved on: 22.09.2016
Order pronounced on 04.10.2016
Hon'ble Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
Inspector Susheel Chandra Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Sis Ram Sharma
R/o B-706, MIG Flats
East of Loni Road, Shahdara
Delhi - 93. ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarter, I.P.Estate
New Delhi.
2. The Special Commissioner of Police
Armed Police
Police Headquarter, I.P.Estate
New Delhi.
3. The D.C.P.
IIIrd Bn. DAP
Vikas Puri Lines
Delhi.
4. Sh. Brahm Singh
(DCP)
(to be served through respondent No.1).. Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Vijay Pandita)
O.A.No.1867/2012
2
ORDER
By V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J):
The applicant, an Inspector, in the respondent-Delhi Police, filed the OA questioning the imposition of minor penalty of `censure' on him.
2. Brief facts, as narrated in the OA, are that while the applicant was working as Inspector, and in-charge of ED Lock-Up, he was issued with a Show Cause Notice dated 12.03.2011 (Annexure A4), calling for his explanation why his conduct should not be censured for the charge levelled against him. The relevant part of the said Show Cause Notice dated 12.03.2011, reads as under:
"On 11.3.2011 Hon'ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and other Hon'ble Justice were visiting E.D. Lock-up at 4.30 pm in connection with inauguration of model ED Lock-Up after renovation. I also reached at ED Lock-Up at about 3.45/50pm and noticed that about five women UTPs were being escorted by three gents police personnel and one woman police behind all the women UTPs. All women UTPs boarded the bus which was parked about 30 meters away from the Lock-Up. Women UTPs guarded by gents police personnel is clear cut violation Section-51 (ii) Cr.PC, SO - 52/08, guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court, Delhi in regard of handling women UTP to maintain their decency.
Inspr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, No.D-1/73, the Incharge of ED Lock Up committed the fault and violated the mandatory above guidelines at a such time when the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court alongwith the other Hon'ble Justice were visiting ED Lock-Up. He did not care about the law and Hon'ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court also."
3. The applicant was served with another Show Cause Notice on 14.03.2011 (Annexure A3), again calling for his explanation why his conduct should not be censured for the charge levelled therein. The relevant part of the said Show Cause Notice reads, as under:
"On 11.03.2011 Hon'ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and other Hon'ble Justice were visiting at 4.30 pm in connection with inauguration of model ED Lock-Up after renovation. I also O.A.No.1867/2012 3 reached ED Lock-Up at about 3.45/50 pm and noticed that about five women UTPs were being escorted by three gents police personnel and one woman police behind all the women UTPs. All women UTPs boarded the Jail van, which was parked about 30 meters away from the Lock-Up. Women UTPs guarded by gents police personnel is clear cut violation of Section-Cr.PC, guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court/High Court, Delhi.
When I noticed this activity, I immediately called Inspr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, No.D-1/73 (PIS No.16810032), In- charge ED Lock Up and asked about the violation. He kept mum and slipped away from the Lock-Up towards outside. As M.M. and other judges of Karkardooma Courts were present outside the Lock UP, I did not think it proper to advise the Inspr. at that movement.
After the function of inauguration of model ED Lock Up was over, Inspr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, No.D-1/73 was advised in presence of Sh. Fateh Singh, ACP not to violate the fundamental law in escorting of women UTPs. The Inspr. loudly stated that ladies staff have left the Lock-Up at their own. On this I enquire from Inspr. if women staff left on their own than why they were not marked absent. ACP also informed that it is not correct, it is being allowed by the Inspr. almost every day before departure of lady UTPs. Inspr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, became arrogant, he started shouting in a indiscipline, disobedience manner & even misbehaved with the undersigned in presence of ACP and other staff of the Lock Up. He tried to justify his act of allowing lady police on the cost of suffering of essential Govt. duties before boarding the women UTP in Jail Van and escorting of women UTP from lock-up to Jail vans by male police along with only one women police."
4. The applicant has not submitted any reply to both the aforesaid Show Cause Notices dated 12.03.2011 (Annexure A4) and 14.03.2011 (Annexure A3).
5. The respondents, in respect of Annexure A3-Show Cause Notice dated 14.03.2011, after hearing the applicant in Orderly Room (OR), and having not satisfied with the explanation of the applicant, confirmed the proposed punishment of censure, vide Annexure A2 dated 23.05.2011 and the operative portion of the same reads as under:
"Inspr. Sushil Chandra Sharma, No.D-1/73 has received the show cause notice on 17.03.11, but he has not submitted any written reply. A U.O. was issued vide No.11473/HAP (P- III)/3rd Bn., DAP, dated 21.04.11 to him for submitting his written reply and was also acknowledge by hm on 27.04.11, but he has not submitted any written reply. Thereafter U.P. Nos O.A.No.1867/2012 4 13454, 13779 & 13927/HAP (P-III)/3rd Bn. DAP, dated 10.05.11, 13.05.11 & 16.05.11 respectively were issued to him to appear in OR alongwith his written reply. Inspr. Sushil Chandra Sharma, No.D-1/73 appeared in OR on 18.05.11.
During OR, he has stated that he accepted his fault and requested to be pardoned. He is an Inspector and acted totally in an indisciplined and disobedience manner in the presence of all staff. Even Sh. Fateh Singh, ACP tried to stop him from doing wrong act, but he did not stop. His behavior also instigates other staff to do wrong act in violation of standing instruction on the subject and to do indiscipline & misbehavior with seniors, which is wrong in a discipline force. Considering all, I find no alternative except to confirm the proposed SCN. Hence, the conduct of Inspr. Sushil Chandra Sharma, D-1/73 is hereby censured for his above said lapse."
The appeal of the applicant was also rejected, vide Annexure A1- Appellate Order dated 08.11.2011 and the operative part of which reads as under:
"The appellant had received a copy of the said SCN on 17.03.2011 but he did not submit his reply to the said SCN even after reasonable opportunities. After considering all aspects and hearing the appellant in O.R., the disciplinary authority awarded punishment of censure to the appellant vide order No.14976-15010/HAP(P-III)/3rd Bn. DAP dated 23.05.2011. Hence, this appeal.
The appellant in his appeal has mainly pleaded that (i) the punishment awarded to him is unjust, unfair and arbitrary,
(ii) the allegations of shouting and arrogance by the appellant before the disciplinary authority are false. He has been punished without fault, (iii) the process of renovation of ED Lock-up was being monitored by Shri R.P.S. Teji, District Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and the same had to be inaugurated by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and other Hon'ble Justice on 11.03.2011 at 04.00 PM as Model Judicial Lock-up. On that day, the appellant had been directed by the Ld. District Judge to clear all male and female UTPs from ED Lock-up till 03.30 PM and no jail van should be kept inside the Deodhi of ED Lock-up, hence, ED Lock-up were cleared of the UTPs within the stipulated time till 03.30 PM and the jail van of female UTPs was kept outside the Deodhi. All women UTPs were boarded in the jail van with utmost care and promptness in the presence of Shri Fateh Singh, ACP, (iv) the disciplinary authority had issued two SCNs and awarded the punishment of censure on the same issue, which is a double jeopardy, (v) this is a general practice in 3rd Bn. that only one women police staff is deployed at each female UTPs Jain Van from Central Jail to all concerned Lock-up and from all Lock-up to Central Jail respectively as per duty roaster dated 11.03.2011.
Subsequently, DCP/3rd Bn. DAP was annoyed and threatened the appellant to face consequences, (vi) the appellant has requested to set aside the punishment.
I have carefully gone through the appeal, impugned order dated 23.05.2011 and all the relevant material on record. I have also heard the appellant in orderly room on 04.11.2011. The pleas of the appellant are denied. The appellant, being O.A.No.1867/2012 5 supervisory officer and Incharge Lock-up, should have followed the instructions contained in S.O.No.52/2008 as well as guidelines of the Apex and High Court regarding handling of women UTPs to maintain their decency. But he failed to do so and when enquired by the disciplinary authority, he behaved in an indiscipline manner and even misbehaved with the disciplinary authority in the presence of Shri Fateh Singh, ACP/3rd Bn. DAP and other staff, which cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force. In view the above, I see no reason to interfere with the order of punishment. The appeal is rejected."
6. In respect of Show Cause Notice dated 12.03.2011, also after hearing the applicant in OR, the disciplinary authority confirmed the proposed punishment of censure vide its Annexure A7-Order, dated 23.05.2011. However, the appellate authority vide its Anneuxre A6 order dated 08.11.2011, by observing that the applicant was already censured in pursuance of the Annexure A3, Show Cause Notice dated 14.03.2011, and that 2nd Censure is not required, allowed the appeal and set aside the punishment imposed under Annexure A7 order dated 23.05.2011.
7. The applicant filed the present OA in respect of the Annexure A3- Show Cause Notice dated 14.03.2011, and the Annexure A2- punishment of censure Order dated 23.05.2011 and the Annexure A1- Appellate Order dated 08.11.2011.
8. Heard Shri Ajesh Luthra, the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vijay Pandita, the learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the pleadings on record.
9. The learned counsel for the applicant, inter-alia, raised the following contentions:
O.A.No.1867/20126
i) The observation of the disciplinary authority that the applicant, during OR, accepted his fault and requested to be pardoned is incorrect and not supported by any documentary evidence.
ii) The presence of Shri Fathe Singh, ACP at the time of alleged altercation between the applicant and the 4th Respondent was not mentioned in the Show Cause Notice but brought to existence in the final disciplinary order and hence, is an afterthought, and result of the mala fide intention of the 4th Respondent, who is also the disciplinary authority.
iii) Though the applicant, in his appeal against the disciplinary order categorically explained about the alleged incident and the reasons thereto, the appellate authority failed to consider the same in a proper perspective.
iv) The disciplinary authority, i.e., Shri Brahm Singh, was the witness to the alleged incident also decided that the charge against the applicant is proved, i.e., the witness and the Judge is one and the same, which is against to the principles of natural justice.
v) The 4th Respondent, who is the disciplinary authority, with mala fide intention, made the applicant as scape goat.
vi) The 4th Respondent in his capacity as a Deputy Commissioner of Police, himself responsible for not allotting sufficient women Constables to escort the Woman UTPs, but thrown the burden on the applicant with mala fide intention.O.A.No.1867/2012 7
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents, inter-alia, would contend as under:
a) The impugned Annexure A3, Show Cause Notice, dated 14.08.2011, clearly indicated that at the time of misbehavior of the applicant, Shri Fathe Singh, ACP was present and hence, the contention of the applicant that the presence of Shri Fathe Singh, ACP was not mentioned in the Show Cause Notice, is against to the record.
b) The applicant, having failed to deny the charges by submitting any written reply to the impugned Show Cause Notice, dated 14.03.2011, in spite of giving number of opportunities, is estopped from stating that he denied the charge levelled against him.
c) The disciplinary order was passed after giving ample opportunity to the applicant to state his case but also after verifying the facts from the Woman Constables and the ACP Fathe Singh, and hence, there is no illegality in passing the disciplinary order by the 4th Respondent in his capacity as disciplinary authority.
d) The applicant in his appeal dated 29.06.2011 against the disciplinary order of censure except denying the allegation of shouting and becoming arrogant but failed to state anything about the presence of ACP Fathe Singh and his action at that time. It was also O.A.No.1867/2012 8 not denied about the presence of ACP Fathe Singh, and hence, the applicant himself with an afterthought now for the first time in the OA stated that ACP Fathe Singh was not present at the time of his misbehavior with the 4th Respondent.
e) The minor penalty of censure was imposed on the applicant after following due procedure as per rules and after providing fair opportunity to the applicant, and hence, the same does not warrant any interference.
11. It is to be seen that the charge levelled against the applicant vide Annexure A4-Show Cause Notice, dated 12.10.2011 was the violation of Rules inasmuch as sufficient women Constables were not escorting the women UTPs. Whereas, the charge levelled, against the applicant in the impugned Annexure A3-Show Cause Notice, dated 14.03.2011, is that when the applicant was questioned about the violation of rules, his indiscipline and misbehavior with the DCP in the presence of ACP and other staff of the Lock-Up. Since the applicant was exonerated in respect of the Show Cause Notice dated 12.03.2011, the charge remaining is only about his indiscipline and misbehavior. In spite of giving opportunity to explain vide the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 14.03.2011 and also letters dated 21.04.2011, 10.05.2011, 13.05.2011 and 16.05.2011, he has not chosen to give any written reply, denying the charge. Hence, his contention that the observation O.A.No.1867/2012 9 made by the disciplinary authority that during OR he accepted his fault and requested to be pardoned, cannot be given any credence.
12. As rightly submitted by the respondents that in the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 14.03.2011 itself the presence of ACP Fathe Singh at the time of misbehavior of the applicant with the DCP was mentioned. The applicant, without submitting any written reply, denying the said fact and also without stating anything about the same in his appeal against the order of censure, now cannot contend that the said ACP Fathe Singh was not present.
13. The applicant having not raised any objection about the passing of the order of censure by the 4th Respondent in his capacity as disciplinary authority at any point of time, now cannot question the impugned order/Show Cause Notice on the said ground. Further, the appellate authority applied its independent mind and confirmed the penalty of censure on him.
14. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the OA, and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.
(V. Ajay Kumar) Member (J) /nsnrvak/