Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rajbir Singh, Inspector In Delhi Police vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through ... on 6 March, 2007
ORDER N.D. Dayal, Member (A)
1. The applicant who is an Inspector in Delhi Police submits that while he was posted in Special Staff of North District, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by Shri B.K. Mishra, ACP and on that basis a departmental enquiry was initiated against him as well as SI D.S. Dagar by order dated 16.5.2002. Subsequently, the enquiry officer issued a summary of allegation. After examining six PWs the enquiry officer in violation of Rule 16 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 cross examined PWs 1, 4 and 6 to bring in evidence against the applicant where there was no ambiguity and only to prove the charge. Thereafter charges were framed and five defence witnesses were examined and the applicant gave his defence statement. The enquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the charge of recovery of fake medicines from Murthal was not proved, but the charge that Roznamcha of Special Staff was stopped from 3.7.2001 to 23.7.2001 and a rough (parallel) Roznamcha was being maintained was substantiated. The disciplinary authority having disagreed with the findings, issued a show cause notice dated 21.4.2004 indicating that it did not agree that the charge of recovery of fake medicines from Murthal is not proved. The applicant submitted a representation but it is alleged that without applying his mind, the disciplinary authority on the basis of preliminary enquiry report, and the charge of stopping of daily diary, awarded on 21.6.2004 a penalty of reduction in rank from Inspector to Sub-Inspector with immediate effect. However, the appellate authority by its order dated 20.4.2005 reduced the punishment to that of forfeiture of five years approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in pay by five stages.
2. It would be useful to reproduce at this stage the charge framed against the applicant after examination of the PWs, which was as under:
I, Ranvir Singh, DCP/8th Bn. DAP charge you Inspr. Rajbir Singh No. D-1/680 and SI D.S. Dagar No. D-3080 that while you were posted in Special Staff, North District you were entrusted with investigation of case FIR No. 382/2001 Under Section 63 C.R. Act, 78/79 T.M. Act, 27 D.C. Act and 420/468/471 IPC PS Kotwali. On 6.7.2001 you Inspr. Rajbir Singh and SI D.S. Dagar conducted a raid in the premises of M/S D.K. Laboratories, Industrial Area, Murthal, Haryana and seized medicines and packing papers used for manufacturing and packing of fake medicines through seizure memo. You did not show recovery of fake medicines in the said seizure memo dated 6.7.2001. Whereas some tablets were recovered from the spot. Besides on the complaint one Shri Ashok Mittal S/O Shri S.K. Mittal R/O A-44, Sita Society, Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi-110085. Shri B.K. Mishra, then then ACP/Vigilance conducted a raid in the office of Special Staff, North District on 23.7.2001 and found that original Roznamcha of Special Staff was stopped from 3.7.2001 to 23.7.2001 and a Rough Roznamcha was being maintained for arrival/departure of the staff under your supervision.
The above act on the part of you Inspr. Rajbir singh No. D-1/680 and SI D.S. Dagar No. D-3080 amounts to gross misconduct with malafide intention, dereliction in discharge of their official duties. Which renders you liable for departmental action under the provision of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.
3. The applicant submits that the Daily Diary of Special Staff is not where the entries about arrest of accused, recovery etc. are to be entered but it is simply a register in which the arrival/departure of staff are lodged and it is just to have control over staff members. No day to day proceedings of any investigation are mentioned therein, which are to be recorded in the concerned area Police Station Daily diary and were recorded accordingly in PS Kotwali and PS Roop Nagar. Thus Daily Diary of Special Staff are not produced in the court either or made a part of investigation since as per PPR 22.49 Special Staff is not a police station, police post or district lines. It is stated that it was for the duty officer to maintain the Roznamcha and the earlier statements of witnesses recorded during the PE were wrongly brought on record contrary to Rule 15(3) and Rule 16(3) of DP (P&A) Rules, 1980. There were inconsistencies in the enquiry report and insufficient evidence. The enquiry officer acted as a prosecutor and with biased attitude cross examined PWs to fill up the gaps in enquiry and bring in evidence against the applicant. Besides it is duty of the concerned ACP to supervise activities of the Special Staff/North District and to see that carbon copies of DD entries recorded in Roznamcha are received in his office. The enquiry is also vitiated due to violation of Rule 16(1) of P&A Rules because complete DD No. 14 dated 20.7.2001 regarding stoppage of Roznamcha was not supplied to the applicant depriving him of reasonable opportunity to effectively cross examine the PWs and defend himself. Although three Roznamchas were recovered in the raid, in the disciplinary enquiry four of them were produced and relied upon to hold the applicant guilty. As such, the applicant prays that the order initiating DE dated 15.5.2000, summary of allegations, findings of the enquiry officer, show cause notice dated 21.4.2004 conveying disagreement and seeking the applicant's representation, as well as the punishment order dated 21.6.2004 and appellate order dated 20.4.2005 be set aside and the respondents directed to restore the applicant's forfeited service and reduced pay with all consequential benefits.
4. The respondents in their counter reply have opposed the claim of the applicant stating that the Roznamcha was stopped from 3.7.2001 to 23.7.2001 on the date when the FIR No. 382/2001 relating to seizure of fake medicines had been entrusted to the Special Staff for investigation. Although huge medicines/tablets were recovered from the factory where the raid was conducted, they were not seized, therefore, SI D.S. Dagar and the applicant were proceeded against for dereliction of duty and maintaining fake Roznamcha. A joint DE was initiated against both of them. However, the disciplinary authority while awarding the above penalty of reduction in rank from Inspector to Sub Inspector to the applicant, observed that SI D.S. Dagar was initially appointed as SI (Executive) and cannot be reduced to a rank lower than that in which was initially appointed. Therefore, he was awarded the punishment of forfeiture of 13 years of approved service permanently entailing subsequent reduction in his pay for the above grave misconduct. The respondents have reiterated that based upon the evidence on record, the findings of the enquiry officer and reasoned and speaking orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority after due application of mind, the charge against the applicant which stood established, may not be interfered with.
5. The learned Counsel for the applicant has asserted that both the applicant as well as SI D.S. Dagar were proceeded against by the same order initiating departmental enquiry, summary of allegation, charge and enquiry proceedings. It was only at the stage of punishment that they were awarded different punishments. However, as would be apparent from the copy placed of the order passed by the Tribunal on 20.10.2006 in OA No. 1557/2005 in the application filed by SI D.S. Dagar, the penalty ultimately imposed upon him was forfeiture of five years of approved service entailing proportionate reduction in his pay by five stages, as evidently modified at the appellate stage. Therefore, the penalty finally awarded to both the applicant as well as SI Dagar is also the same. Significantly, the Tribunal has already quashed the orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority in that OA. As such, the stand taken by the respondents against the applicant based upon the same departmental proceedings in the present OA is unsustainable.
6. A perusal of the present pleadings shows that the allegations against the applicant and SI D.S. Dagar were the same as also was the charge made out by the enquiry officer against them. The disagreement note also does not distinguish between them. A perusal of the Tribunal's order in OA 1557/2005 shows that the submissions made and grounds taken before the Tribunal were similar to the pleadings in the present case. It was also noted therein that the vigilance enquiry conducted by Shri R.K. Bansal, ACP had been made the basis by the enquiry officer whereas Shri Bansal was not examined nor cited as a witness. The Tribunal recorded the lacunae noticed in the proceedings and found no evidence against SI D.S. Dagar because SI Satbir Singh did not support the recovery of fake medicines. On the other hand, the appellate authority seems to have relied upon the enquiry by Shri B.K. Mishra, ACP, and had stated that the Inspector was responsible for maintaining Roznamcha of the Special Staff. In that event the Tribunal held that SI D.S. Dagar could not be held responsible for non-maintenance of the same. At the same time, the Tribunal observed that the disciplinary authority had relied upon the enquiry conducted by Shri R.K. Bansal, ACP and the findings of the preliminary enquiry could not have been relied upon while considering the delinquency against SI D.S. Dagar. It was concluded that all PWs were silent about the seizure of medicines and there was no evidence in that regard.
7. With regard to maintenance of Roznamcha the Tribunal held that non-maintenance of the original one from 3.7.2001 to 23.7.2001 could not be stated to be a serious lapse as no prejudice is caused to the department on account of omission from the official Roznamcha. While it cannot be said that it was not incumbent upon the Special Branch to maintain Roznamcha since no prejudice purported to have been caused to the respondents, such non-maintenance may amount to a mere irregularity. In this view of the matter, SI D.S. Dagar was held to be not responsible for non-maintenance of Roznamcha nor the respondents were held to have been able to prove about non-seizure of medicines. As such, the punishment order and appellate order were held to be unsustainable in law.
8. During the hearing of this matter, the learned Counsel for the respondents sought permission to submit certain documents that would throw light upon the responsibility of the applicant with regard to the maintenance of Roznamcha and that non-maintenance of the same would amount to misconduct. She has produced a copy of Chapter XXII of the Punjab Police Rules, pages 920 to 925. Rule 22.45 lists 25 Registers to be maintained at each police station as per the rules indicated therein. As per Rule 22.48 regarding Register No. II, entries in the station diary are to be made by the officer in charge of police station and they can also be made by the station clerk. Rule 22.49 also relates to Register No. II and while mentioning the matters to be entered therein inter alia makes clear that the term 'police station' will include police lines and police posts where Register No. II is maintained. It is, therefore, not clear whether Special Staff would be included as such police station or that the Inspector would have to be held solely responsible for misconduct which has been denied by the applicant. No explanatory note has been appended with these papers.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion and the judgment of the coordinate Bench in OA No. 1557/2005 delivered after taking note of similar grounds that were advanced by the parties based upon the same departmental proceedings, the punishment order and the order of the appellate authority are quashed. No costs.