Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Jagbir Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 3 May, 2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 3832/2013
New Delhi, this the 3rd day of May, 2018
HON'BLE MR. V. AJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (J)
Inspr. Jagbir Singh,
Age 47 years,
S/o Late Shri Baldev Singh,
R/o E-1, Type-IV,
PS Inderpuri, New Delhi-110012. ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta)
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi through
1. Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Players Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
2. Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarter,
MSO Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
3. Joint Commissioner of Police
(Central Range),
Police Headquarter,
MSO Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
4. Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Central District,
Daryaganj, Delhi. ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Vijay Pandita)
2
OA 3832/2013
ORDER (ORAL)
The applicant, an Inspector in the respondent - Delhi Police, filed the O.A. seeking quashing of the penalty order dated 01.10.2011 (Annexure A-1) imposing the penalty of censure on him and the Appellate Order dated 05.10.2012 (Annexure A-2) rejecting his appeal.
2. The brief facts emerged from the pleadings are that the applicant joined as SHO at Police Station Desh Bandhu Gupta Road (DBG Road), New Delhi on 31.12.2010 and that, on 27.01.2011 Shri Vivek Kishor, Dy. Commissioner of Police, Central District, Delhi visited the Police Station and found various lapses on the part of the applicant and, accordingly, issued different explanation notices to the applicant. Annexure A4 dated 02.02.2011 is one such explanation notice, wherein he stated that 6 cases of MV Theft, 1 case of Servant Theft, 1 case of Other Theft and 1 case of Kidnapping have been reported so far in the police station in the year 2011, but none of the cases have been solved so far and that even none of the Inspectors including SHO/DBG Road were aware of the fact that the UIDB in case FIR No. 158/10 has already been identified and, accordingly, he stated that the same shows unprofessional approach on the part of SHO/DBG Road, i.e. the 3 OA 3832/2013 applicant, who failed to follow up such an important issue with the concerned IO and that the performance of the applicant with respect to the investigation of the cases and solving those cases had also been very poor which inferred that the efforts being made on this front were not upto the mark.
3. As the applicant has not submitted any reply thereto within the 7 days' time fixed in the said explanation notice, the respondents have issued reminders on 17.03.2011 and 07.04.2011. The applicant submitted his reply to the explanation vide Annexure A-5 dated 11.04.2011 after the 2nd reminder dated 07.04.2011 was issued to him. However, the respondents without considering the same, issued the Show Cause Notice dated 18.05.2011 vide Annexure A-6 proposing for imposition of penalty of censure for the said lapses, already mentioned in the explanation. The applicant failed to submit any reply to said Show Cause Notice. As a result, the 4th respondent, i.e. Dy. Commissioner of Police, confirmed the penalty of censure on the applicant vide the impugned Annexure A- 1 dated 01.10.2011. The applicant preferred an appeal against the said penalty order vide Annexure A-3, dated Nil. The respondents rejected the said appeal vide Annexure A-2, Appellate Order dated 05.10.2012.
4OA 3832/2013
4. Heard Shri S.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vijay Pandita, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the pleadings on record.
5. Shri S.K. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the applicant joined as an SHO in the Police Station DBG Road, Delhi on 31.12.2010 only and that the visit of the 4th respondent was on 27.01.2011, i.e. even before he completed a month in the said Station. Hence, the non-solving of all the pending cases in the station cannot be attributed to the applicant. He further submits that though the applicant submitted a reply to the explanation by expressing his apology and also by explaining that he was not reluctant and acting upto the mark and also the measures taken by him for solving the various cases registered in the Police Station. However, the 4th respondent without considering the said reply to the explanation, issued the Show Cause Notice of censure and since the applicant has already submitted a reply to the explanation, he has not given any separate reply to the Show Cause Notice.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that not giving a reply to the Show Cause Notice cannot be taken against the applicant as he has already submitted a reply to the explanation, as 5 OA 3832/2013 the contents in both the explanation and the Show Cause Notice are one and the same.
7. The learned counsel further submits that even the Appellate Authority failed to consider the detailed explanation given by the applicant and the detailed submissions basing on the record of the police station were also not considered and passed the Appellate Order.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance, on a Coordinate Bench decision in O.A. No. 3830/2013 dated 18.12.2017, filed by the applicant himself, that too, against an identical censure order.
9. On the other hand, Shri Vijay Pandita, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the impugned charge against the applicant was not that he failed to solve the cases, but that he was unaware of the pendency of various cases and the applicant was punished for his unawareness and not giving due attention towards increasing crime. He further submits that once a show cause notice of censure was issued, it is the duty of the applicant to submit a reply thereto and he cannot avoid submitting the reply on the ground that he submitted a reply to the explanation.
6OA 3832/2013
10. The learned counsel for the respondents also submits that for the various lapses of the applicant, number of identical show cause notices were issued and he was imposed penalty of censure in various cases. However, he has not denied that in certain penalty orders, this Tribunal has interfered and quashed the same.
11. In O.A. No. 3830/2013, this Tribunal while considering the identical submissions in respect of a penalty order of censure also passed in identical circumstances, and in the case of the applicant, observed as under:
12. Arguments were heard and documents perused. The inspection was conducted on 27.01.2011 and the explanation notice was issued on 02.02.2011. That there were certain shortcomings that were observed would have certainly been within the knowledge of the applicant. However, due to the relatively more important responsibility of making proper arrangement for the Republic Day function, one of the main national functions, the applicant could not attend to the regular work but later on at the earliest he had attended to the work and brought the pendency down to a great extent. This fact as stated in the application has not been rebutted. Further, the statistics given by the applicant in his appeal apparently has not been considered by the appellate authority. There is thus substance in the argument of the counsel for the applicant.
13. In so far as the competence of the DCP who conducted the inspection, issued the show cause and passed penalty order, on an identical situation, a Division Bench of this Tribunal in RA 101/2010 in OA 2388/2008 (supra) has held as under:-
"4. There are, as mentioned above, number of allegations made against the applicant in the show cause notice, which may be wholly unrelated to each other. However, insofar as the allegations as regards there being no such mechanism operational to attend to the calls quickly, and that the building was found in shabby condition and without any furniture for the staff, as also that no Inspector or SI used to sit in the police post regularly, which came to the notice of DCP on his surprise visit, are concerned, these allegations 7 OA 3832/2013 have also been held to be proved. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties, at one time we were forming the opinion that once, there are number of other allegations to which the applicant may not have been able to give any satisfactory reply, and, therefore, even if some of the allegations as regards the shortcomings which were found out by the DCP on his surprise visit, which also stood proved, the same may not make any difference, inasmuch as even on proof of the other allegations the applicant could be inflicted with the punishment of censure, which is a minor punishment and there may not be any lesser punishment that could be inflicted upon the applicant. However, on deeper consideration of the issue, we are of the view that once, even for part of the allegations, the DCP would be inclined to uphold the same, there may be a temptation on his part to uphold or prove other allegations as well. It is possible that a person may examine the allegations in an unbiased manner irrespective of the fact that some of the allegations may have come to be noted by himself, but the possibility that such person may be more inclined to uphold the other allegations as well, cannot be ruled out. In administrative law, rules of natural justice are fundamental and fundamental concept and law is now well settled that the principles of natural justice are part of the legal and judicial procedures. Principles of natural justice are applicable to administrative bodies. One of the cardinal principles of natural justice is nemo debet esse judex in propria causa (no man shall be a judge in his own cause). It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rattan Lal Sharma v Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-Education) Higher Secondary School [(1993) 4 SCC 10] that the deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.
5. On the principle that justice must not only be done, but it should appear to have been done, it would be more appropriate to set aside the impugned orders. We thus review our order dated 18.12.2009 and allow the OA to the limited extent that while setting aside orders dated 21.11.2007 and 2.7.2008, we direct that the show cause notice issued to the applicant would not be decided by Shri Alok Kumar, DCP, who decided the case of the applicant vide order dated 21.11.2007. We are conscious that the concerned authority under rules or instructions may be the DCP, but in a case of this kind, hearing has to be by someone else, may be of equivalent or even higher in rank. Since the event is of the year 2007, Shri Alok Kumar may not be in position as 8 OA 3832/2013 DCP/Central District. If that be so, there would be no difficulty, as surely, the DCP now in position can deal with and decide the matter. If, however, he be still in position, the Joint Commissioner of Police or the Additional Commissioner of Police may assign this task to DCP of some other district, or even to an officer higher in rank. Inasmuch as, more than three years have gone by, the matter would be dealt with and disposed of as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from receipt of a certified copy of this order."
14. Thus even from the point of view of competence, on the strength of the above order of the Division Bench, the applicant has made out a case in his favour.
12. A careful examination of the facts in the present O.A. and that of the facts in O.A. No.3830/2013 indicates that this Tribunal under identical circumstances quashed the identical impugned orders. I agree with the reasoning given by the Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid O.A.
13. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the O.A. is allowed and the impugned orders dated 01.10.2011 and 05.10.2012 are quashed, with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs.
(V. AJAY KUMAR) Member (J) /Jyoti /