Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Harender Singh (D/604) vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 6 April, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.1849/2009 New Delhi, this the 6th day of April, 2010 HONBLE MR. L.K. JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A) HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) Harender Singh (D/604) S/o Shri Ranbir Singh R/o Quarter No.C-5, Police Station Pahar Ganj, Delhi. Applicant By Advocate: Shri Shyam Babu. Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi Through its Chief Secretary, Players Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Joint Commissioner of Police, Southern Range, Police Head Quarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, (South West District), Police Station Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Vijay Pandita. O R D E R
By Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Applicant has challenged the enquiry report dated 11.6.2007, order dated 25.1.2008 whereby he has been imposed the punishment of withholding of next increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect and his suspension period from 2.8.2006 to 26.11.2006 has been treated as period not spent on duty for all intents and purposes (page 26) and order dated 20.6.2008 (page 28) whereby his appeal has been rejected. He has sought all the consequential benefits also.
2. It is stated by the applicant that a departmental enquiry was initiated against him while he was working as Sub Inspector on the following charge:-
Charge I, Assistant Commissioner of Police K.S. Bhatnagar, ACP/ Najafgrah Sub-Division, Delhi hereby charge you S.I. Harender Singh No. D-604 (PIS No.16950078) that while posted at P.S. Kamla Market, Delhi you were the I.O. of case FIR No.214/02 U/S 276 NDPS Act. The offence in this case was committed on 12.6.2002 and the charge sheet was prepared on 12.9.2002 and ordered to put in court by the then ACP/Kamla Market on 30.9.2002. However, you did not file the challan in the court and kept the case file with you unnecessarily. You put the challan of the above case for trial in the court of Shri Anil Kumar Sisodia, M.M. Tis Hazari Court on 30.5.2006, i.e., after about three years and 8 months. You SI Harender Singh have made no request for the condonation of delay nor did you appear in the court to explain why charge sheet was not filed within the period of limitation. In the order dated 3.6.2006, the Honble Court of Shri Anil Kumar Sisodia has observed that according to Section 468 Cr. P.C., the limitation of taking cognizance in such offence is one year and as such the charge sheet is barred by limitation for about two years and 8 months for which there is no explanation on record due to which the court declined to take cognizance of the offence and discharged the accused. The Honble Court also observed that the conduct of the I.O. does not call any explanation which is self explanatory on the face of it. You being I.O. of the case did not file the charge sheet within the period of limitation and thereby committed an offence of screening the offender from punishment.
It is further alleged against you (SI Harender Singh No.D-604) that the following 4 case files of the year 2002 for which road certificates were dispatched through you for sending the case files for trial were also pending with you unnecessarily:-
FIR No. 190/02 u/s 27-61/85 NDPS Act (RC No.319/21 dated 30.9.2002).
FIR No.213/02 u/s 27-61/85 NDPS Act (RC No.281/21 dated 31.8.2002).
3. FIR No.225/02 u/s 27-61/85 NDPS Act (RC No.320/21 dated 30.9.2002).
4. FIR No.388/02 u/s 379 IPC (RC No.73/21 dated 30.9.2002).
You were reminded by SHO Kamla Market many times and finding no other recourse, the files mentioned at Sl.No.1 to 3 above have been put in court by you on 19.7.2006. The file mentioned at Serial No.4 is still with you.
The above act on your part amounts to gross misconduct, carelessness and negligence in the discharge of your official duties, which render you liable to be dealt with departmentally under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.
3. The Inquiry Officer gave his report in which it was clearly mentioned that at present no case file is pending with the defaulter and the cases have been admitted by the court for trial after due consideration of delay, therefore, the sting of the charge was taken away by the Inquiry Officer. Moreover, it was held by the Inquiry Officer that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the applicant, yet the disciplinary authority imposed the major penalty on the applicant and the appeal was also rejected in a stereotype manner.
4. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the punishment imposed on the applicant is too excessive, as compared to the charge because ultimately applicant was able to explain the delay to the court on the basis of which challans were accepted after condoning the delay, therefore, there was no justification to impose a major penalty on the applicant. In any case 5 cases were mentioned in the charge, which were stated to have been delayed by the applicant, out of which, 3 were already admitted by the court, therefore, disciplinary authority could not have imposed the punishment by taking into account all the 4 plus 1 case. He has thus prayed that the relief may be granted to the applicant.
5. OA is opposed by the respondents who have stated that a departmental enquiry was initiated against the applicant for delaying the case files unnecessarily before putting them up in the court in spite of directions given by the SHO, Kamla Market. The FIR No. 214/2002 was filed after a long delay, as a result of which the court declined to take cognizance of the offence and observations were also made by the Honble Court of Shri Anil Kumar Sisodia. Moreover, 4 case files of the year 2002 for which road certificates were dispatched through him for sending the case files for trial were also pending with him unnecessarily for a long period in spite of reminders given by the SHO/Kamla Market. Thus applicant was careless and negligent in his duties. The charge was proved in the enquiry, therefore, agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority has rightly imposed punishment on the applicant. No illegality or irregularity has been pointed out by the counsel for the applicant in conducting the enquiry. Since the charge already stands proved, it is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority to impose the punishment. Honble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that so long there is some evidence in the case, court should not interfere with final decision taken by the authorities and that the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision making process and not the decision. In the instant case since no irregularity has been pointed out by the applicant, this case calls for no interference.
6. On the question of quantum of punishment also counsel for the respondents stated the punishment is not so excessive which would prick the conscience of the court on which ground alone the court can interfere. He thus prayed that the OA may be dismissed.
7. We have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings as well.
8. From the charge, as quoted above, it is clear that the charge against the applicant was that he had unnecessarily delayed the filing of challan in the court as a result of which in one case no cognizance was taken by the court because the limitation of taking cognizance was one year whereas the charge sheet was filed after 3 years and 8 months, that too without any explanation on record. Thus, the accused was discharged. Similarly 4 FIRs of the year 2002 were also pending with the applicant for a long time unnecessarily in spite of reminders issued by the SHO, Kamla Market, 3 of which were finally put up in court by the applicant only on 19.7.2006 whereas the 4th file, namely, FIR 388/2002 was still pending with him. It was thus stated that the applicant was careless and negligent in discharge of his official duties whereas counsel for the applicant was trying to confuse the issue by saying that he had no intentions of giving any benefit to the accused. He also tried to say that since delay was explained by the applicant to the court which was accepted and the cases are pending trial in 3 cases, therefore, the sting of charge had already been taken out. We do not accept this contention for the simple reason because even though the Inquiry Officer had noted that at present no case file is pending with the defaulter but negligence on the part of the defaulter had definitely been proved by the Inquiry Officer.
9. Moreover, as far as case FIR No. 214/2002 is concerned, admittedly, the challan was filed by the applicant in the court after 3 years and 8 months whereas the limitation period was only one year and applicant had not even sought condonation of delay nor he appeared in the court to explain why charge could not be filed within the period of limitation as a result of which the court did not take cognizance of the said offence and discharged the accused. These facts clearly show that the applicant had indeed been negligent in performing his duties. Simply because the delay was condoned by the court in other 3 cases, it does not mean that the applicants negligence can also be condoned. After all when directions were given to him by the SHO to file the challans, it was his duty to file the said challans in the court within the stipulated period. Admittedly, all the cases were filed by him after a long delay, therefore, the charge of carelessness already stands proved.
10. At this juncture it would be relevant to refer to the following judgments of the Honble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that once charge is proved then the quantum of punishment should be left to the authorities to decide:-
(i) In B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. U.O.I. & Ors., reported in AIR 1996 SC 484 Honble Supreme Court has held the discretion to impose punishment is vested with authorities keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty.
(ii) In Union of India vs. Parmananda reported in 1989 (2) SCC 177, Honble Supreme Court held that Tribunal cannot interfere with punishment on the ground that it is not commensurate with delinquency of employee.
(iii) In Union of India & Ors. Vs. Narain Singh reported in AISLJ 2002 (3) 151, it was held that once charges of a grave nature are proved, the other points are not relevant and Court cannot interfere in the quantum of penalty. It was categorically held that Court must not lightly interfere with the punishment passed, after a properly conducted enquiry, where the guilt is proved.
(iv) It has also been held by Honble Supreme Court in 2003 (4) SCC 364 Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Others that it is settled law that the court should not interfere with the administrators decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of Wednesbury principle the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. Therefore, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference.
11. In the instant case, no irregularity in conducting the departmental enquiry has been pointed out. The charge has been proved and even the punishment is also not so shocking which would warrant our interference because only one increment has been withheld for a period of one year, that too without cumulative effect, therefore, we find no good ground to interfere in this case. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No costs.
(MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER) (L.K. JOSHI) MEMBER (J) VICE CHAIRMAN (A) Rakesh