Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Naresh Kumar vs Comm. Of Police on 8 September, 2016

                 Central Administrative Tribunal
                         Principal Bench

                            OA No.3318/2013

                                      Order reserved on: 14.07.2016
                                  Order pronounced on: 08.09.2016

Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S.Sullar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. V. N. Gaur, Member (A)

Naresh Kumar
HC (Dvr.) in Delhi Police
PIS No.28850977
Aged about 52 years
S/o Sh. Mool Chand
R/o VPO Barmora,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
                                                 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Anil Singal)

                                 Versus

1.   Govt. of NCT of Delhi through
     Commissioner of Police,
     Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate,
     New Delhi.

2.   The Joint Commissioner of Police,
     South Western Range
     PHQ, I.P. Estate,
     New Delhi.

3.   Addl. DCP (West Distt),
     PS Rajouri Garden,
     New Delhi.
                                               - Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs. Sumedha Sharma)

                                  ORDER

Hon'ble Mr. V.N.Gaur, Member (A) The applicant has filed this OA with the following prayer:

"(1) To quash and set aside the impugned orders mentioned in Para-1 of O.A. with all consequential benefits.

(2) To award in favour of the applicant and pass any order or orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case."

2. The case in brief is that the applicant a Head Constable (Driver) [HC (Dvr.)] in Delhi Police was driving official Gypsy on 25.10.2010 when it was hit by an unknown vehicle. The vehicle over turned due to the impact and the applicant could not see the registration number of the vehicle. Being in a state of shock he took the vehicle at PS Janakpuri parked it there without informing anyone. On 26.10.2010 when the reliever of the applicant, HC (Dvr.) Baljeet found the vehicle in a damaged condition, he lodged the DD No.9A at P.S. Janakpuri and brought the incident in the knowledge of ACP PG Cell. The respondents charged the applicant of misconduct and served him with a summary of allegations dated 31.05.2011, which reads as follows:

"It is alleged against HC (Dvr.) Naresh Kumar No.481/W on 25/10/10 while performing his duty on Govt. Vehicle No. DL-1C- 7406 met with an accident with unknown vehicle at Ladosarai more south Distt. due to which the vehicle cause heavy damage. He concealed the fact of the accident. Neither he made any call to PCR nor intimated the incident to his senior officers and parked the vehicle at PS Janakpuri and went home.

The incident came to light next morning i.e. 26/10/10 when HC (Dvr.) Baljeet No. 538/W came to perform his duty on the said vehicle. He found the Govt. vehicle No. DL-1 CJ-7406 damaged and he lodged the DD No. 9A at PS Janakpuri and brought the whole episode to the Notice of Sh. Rajender Singh ACP/PG Cell.

The above act on his part renders him liable department action under the provisions of Delhi police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980."

3. Not satisfied with the reply of the applicant the respondents instituted disciplinary proceeding against him. The enquiry officer submitted his report proving the charge against the applicant. After considering the representation of the applicant thereon, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) vide order dated 18.01.2012 ordered forfeiture of two years approved service permanently entailing reduction in his pay from Rs.11140 + GP Rs.2800 to Rs.10330 + Rs.2800 with immediate effect. The appeal of the applicant was also dismissed vide order dated 09.07.2012.

4. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the very charge of concealment of the fact of accident by the applicant was without any foundation. The applicant after the accident was mentally disturbed, and therefore, he left for home after parking the vehicle at PS Janakpuri. Next morning, he informed his reliever HC (Dvr.) Baljeet about the incident and also appeared before the ACP/PG Cell and reiterated the incident. Since the applicant had informed everyone concerned before they came to know about it from other sources, he cannot be charged for concealment. Learned counsel further stated that there was no allegation questioning the integrity of the applicant. It was a case of an accident during the course of performing official duty, as such, no case for misconduct could be made out. Further relying on Inspector Prem Chand vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another, (2007) 4 SCC 566, learned counsel stated that an error of judgment or negligence simplicitor 4 OA No.3318/2013 was not a misconduct. Further the applicant had got the vehicle repaired at his own cost with the consent of his superiors. The enquiry against the applicant, when there was no misconduct, was bad in law.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the vehicle driven by the applicant met with an accident on 25.10.2010 with an unknown vehicle due to which the vehicle suffer heavy damage. Being a member of the Police Force, the applicant was fully aware that in such a situation, he should have informed the PCR or to his superior officers immediately. Instead, he chose to quietly park the vehicle at PS Janakpuri and went home. The incident came to light only when HC (Dvr.) Baljeet came to perform his duty on 26.10.2010. The respondents rightly treated this as a misconduct and proceeded with departmental action against the applicant in accordance with the rules and law. Every opportunity was given to the applicant to defend himself in the enquiry which culminated into final order passed by the DA forfeiting two years approved service of the applicant permanently. According to the learned counsel the fact that the damaged vehicle had been repaired at the cost of the applicant does not in any way dilute the misconduct on his part in concealing the incident and not informing the superiors immediately.

OA No.3318/2013

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The question before us is whether there was any misconduct on the part of the applicant.

7. It is an admitted fact that the applicant was performing official duty on 2510.2010 when the vehicle met with an accident, being hit by an unknown vehicle causing severe damage to the vehicle. The applicant instead of informing the PCR or his superior officer kept the vehicle at PS Janakpuri. Later, on 26.10.2010 HC (Dvr.) Baljeet discovered that the vehicle was involved in an accident. Here there are two versions. According to the respondents the fact of the accident was discovered by the HC (Dvr.) Baljeet on 26.10.2010 and he lodged the DD entry No.9A in this regard. The applicant, on the other hand, has stated that he informed HC (Dvr.) Baljeet telephonically about the incident. In either case it is not the contention of the applicant that he informed HC (Dvr.) Baljeet immediately after the accident and that was what was expected of him as per departmental instructions. The applicant further stated that he informed the ACP/PG Cell at 10 a.m. on 26.10.2010 about the accident. The charge against the applicant is that he concealed the fact of accident by neither making any call to PCR nor intimating the incident to his senior officers. He parked the vehicle at PS Jankapuri and went home. Applicant had not denied this factual position. The main argument of the applicant is that the lapse on his part could at best be the professional incompetence or 6 OA No.3318/2013 an innocent mistake which cannot be categorised as misconduct. He has relied on Inspector Prem Chand (supra), which is not relevant in the background of the facts of the present case. The applicant was in the charge of the Government vehicle at the time when it was hit by an unknown vehicle. From the pleadings on record, it is not known whether the applicant was at that time driving the vehicle or the vehicle was parked or he was not in the vehicle or whether he was driving the vehicle in accordance with the traffic rules, according to the speed limit etc. To establish that it was a lack of professional competence or innocent mistake, it was necessary that the applicant should have called the PCR or the Traffic Police or informed his senior officers so that the matter could have been investigated on the scene of the accident to determine as to who was at fault. The name of the applicant could have been cleared. By not informing any of the authorities, the applicant not only allowed the driver of the unknown vehicle to go scot free but also lost the opportunity of proving that he was not in the wrong. Being a part of a uniformed force, the applicant cannot plead ignorance about what should have been his first reaction when a vehicle was involved in an accident. The conduct of the applicant in concealing the accident immediately after it occurred could give rise to a suspicion that there was something to hide. We are, therefore, not inclined to treat the conduct of the applicant merely as a professional incompetence or a mistake.

OA No.3318/2013

8. It is trite that in a disciplinary matter the scope for intervention by the Tribunal is very limited as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749. We do not find any pleading by the applicant that there was any lapse or shortcoming in the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the respondent. We, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere in the impugned orders.

9. In light of the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above, the OA is found to be without merit and is dismissed as such.

(V.N. Gaur)                                (Justice M.S. Sullar)
Member (A)                                      Member (J)

'sd'

September 8, 2016