Delhi District Court
Department vs . Rajesh Kumar ( Process Server) on 5 September, 2009
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE13: CENTRAL: DELHI
Department Inquiry No. 01/2009
Department Vs. Rajesh Kumar ( Process Server)
5.9.2009
O R D E R
This inquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules 1965 being held against Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Process Server was marked by the Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Delhi vide Order No. 4353/F.58/Vig. dated 14.01.2009. As per the articles of charge framed against the delinquent employee Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Process Server, while posted in the Nazarat Branch, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in the year 2005, was entrusted with the summon issued to accused on 23.6.2005 in case titled as "The Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajender Kumar' by the court of Sh. Sunil Chaudhary, MM for 6.8.2005, wherein the delinquent employee had given false report on 8.7.2005 regarding death of accused whereas the accused Sh. Rajender 1 Kumar had appeared before the Ld. MM on 4.11.2006. It is alleged that the delinquent employee has violated the instructions / guidelines issued for service of summons / notices which act on the part of the delinquent employee amounts to gross negligence, carelessness,lack of devotion to duty and acting in a manner of unbecoming a government servant which constitute misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and thereby rendering himself liable for disciplinary action under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
The record reveals that the delinquent employee had filed his detailed reply dated 10.7.2007 to the memo of charge sheet in which he has denied all the allegations made against him, which statement he has adopted. The department has examined as many as five witnesses in its support. In so far as SW1, SW2, SW4 and SW5 are concerned they all are formal witnesses who have proved the various records, memo issued to the delinquent employee, etc. Sh. Sunil Chaudhary the then MM who had passed 2 the order on the basis of which the inquiry was initiated, has been examined as SW3. It is testified by the Ld. MM that while discharging his official duties he had perused the report dated 8.7.2005 on the summons issued in complaint case bearing no. 1317/04 titled as Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Vs. Rajender Kumar, Police Station Connaught Place, Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, with regard to the death of accused Rajender Kumar. The witness has identified the summon Ex.SW5/A, which bears the report of the delinquent employee Ex.SW3/B, which report is on the back of the Ex.SW5/A. According to SW3 / Sh. Sunil Chaudhary the report with regard to the death of the accused Rajinder Kumar was directed to be verified vide his order dated 4.11.2006, after which the accused Rajender Kumar had appeared alongwith his counsel in the court of Sh. Sunil Chaudhary, MM on 4.11.2006 and was subsequently released on bail vide order Ex.SW3/A. The delinquent employee had given a false report Ex. SW3/B to the extent that the accused 3 Rajender Kumar had expired about two years back. The accused however appeared before the court and was even admitted to bail and thus the report of process server Rajesh Kumar / delinquent employee was found to be false. The issue was thereafter brought to the notice of the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi for appropriate action against the delinquent vide the same order Ex.SW3/A. The case of the delinquent employee is that he has given the report on the basis of the information given by the employer / office of the accused. In this regard the delinquent has examined the accused Rajender Kumar as his witness DW1. The DW1 has deposed that he was working as Sr. Safaiwala, Engineering Deptt., Indian Airlines, IGI Airport, New Delhi37. He has further deposed that he had taken loan from The Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd. which loan was under dispute and a case in respect of the said loan was pending in the court of Sh. Sunil Chaudhary, then MM New Delhi, which case has now been disposed off. DW1 further testified that the summon was served 4 upon him on his residence address and that he had never been posted at Indian Airlines, Sansad Marg, New Delhi Branch. The testimony of the DW1 has been corroborated by Ms. Vimla Kumar, who has been examined as DW4. The said witness was Care Taker in the Air India, Airlines House. She further submits that Sh. Rajesh Kumar Process Server had come to her and had made inquiry about one Rajender Kumar, and she informed the process server that Rajender Kumar had expired. According to DW4 Rajender Kumar was not a Safai Karamchari but was a PeoncumFarash and there was no other person in the said name. She has stated that the said Rajender Singh had expired. She has further deposed that she is the Incharge of Class IV employees and the said Rajender Singh, PeoncumFarash whose report she had furnished was under her supervision and she had no authorization to receive the summons. She further testified that she had not received the summon of Rajender Singh, Peon cumFarash but had given information on being asked by the competent officer. DW2 Mohan Lal Menaria has proved that the 5 summons were handed over to delinquent employee for service. DW3 is the complainant in case no. 1317/04, under the tile of Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Vs. Rajender Kumar, who has stated that he has not made any complaint against the process server or against the department.
I have considered the material placed before me. Admittedly, a wrong report regarding the death of accused Rajender Kumar had been furnished before the court. The evidence on record shows that the delinquent / Process Server was however not at fault since he had been so informed about his death by the employer of the accused, which aspect stands corroborated from the testimony of the Care Taker examined as DW4, who was also the Incharge of the Class IV employees, in Air India, Airlines House. It appears that there was a wrong reporting on account of some confusion regarding the names. According to SW4 the Process Sever had made inquiry about the Safai Karamchari Rajender Kumar and she informed the Process Server that there was no such person, whereas a Peoncum 6 Farash by the name of Rajender Singh had expired before two years. It was this information which was given to the Process Server by the SW4. However, were the delinquent employee faltered was that he did not take the signatures, name or address of the employer alongwith the seal which was required as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in FAO No.460/2002 under the title Ravi Dutt Vs. Chunni Lal.
Therefore, under these circumstances, I hereby hold that the charge of gross negligence, lack of devotion to duty and acting in a manner of unbecoming a government servant constituting misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 warranting disciplinary action under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 does not stand proved.
However, it is evident from the report on the process that the signatures of the authorized officer, his name and designation and also the stamp of the receiving authority, had not been obtained by the process server, as was required in view of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble High Court vide FAO No. 7 460/2002 titled as Ravi Dutt Vs. Chunni Lal applicable to the departmental employees including the delinquent employee showing that the delinquent was careless and nonobservance of these guidelines.
Therefore, under the given circumstances, I hold that the delinquent employee was careless in not observing the guidelines issued by the Delhi High Court vide FAO No. 460/2002. The charge of negligence, lack of devotion to the duty and acting in a manner of unbecoming a government servant constituting misconduct, do not stand established and therefore I recommend that ends of justice would be served if a minor penalty in the form of advisory / warning is issued to the delinquent. It is further recommended that the directions of Delhi High Court issued in FAO No. 460/2002 titled as Ravi Dutt Vs. Chunni Lal should be circulated among all the employees of District Nazarat to ensure their strict enforcement and compliance.
8
The attached file bearing Case No. 1317/04 under the title 'The Delhi Safe Deposit Com. Vs. Rajender Kumar' be returned back to the concerned court.
The inquiry proceedings along with the findings of this court are directed to be placed before Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Delhi for information and appropriate action.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
th
on this 5 Day of September, 2009 Addl. District Judge, Delhi 9 Department Inquiry No. 01/2009 Department Vs. Rajesh Kumar (Process Server) 5.9.2009 Present: Sh. Manoj Kumar presenting officer of department.
Delinquent employee in person alongwith Sh. Rakesh Sharma defence assistant.
Written synopsis of arguments are filed on behalf of both the parties. Copies are supplied to each other. Heard final arguments. Be listed for orders at 4 p.m. (Dr. Kamini Lau, ADJ/Delhi) 5.9.2009 (At 4 p.m.) Present: None.
Vide separate detailed order dictated and announced in the open court, the departmental inquiry is disposed off. The attached file bearing Case No. 1317/04 under the title 'The Delhi Safe Deposit Com. Vs. Rajender Kumar' be returned back to the concerned court. The inquiry proceedings along with the findings of this court are directed to be placed before Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Delhi for information and appropriate action.
(Dr. Kamini Lau, ADJ/Delhi) 5.9.2009 10