Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Yashpal vs Comm. Of Police on 12 July, 2024
1
OA No. 3894/2018
Item No.23/C-2
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 3894/2018
Reserved on : 01.07.2024
Pronounced on : 12.07.2024
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Yashpal (Age about 60 years), Group 'C'
S/o Late Shri Rajpal
Retired from the post of Sub-Inspector (Traffic),
Delhi Police
R/o H.No. B-59, Vrindavan Garden
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P.
.. Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. A.K. Bhakta)
Versus
Commissioner of Police & Anr. through:
1. Commissioner of Police
2nd Floor, Police Headquarter
Near MSO Building, I.P. Estate
ITO, New Delhi-110002.
2. Joint Commissioner of Police
Traffic, Ops.
9th Floor, Police Headquarter
I.P. Estate, ITO
Delhi-110002.
.. Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand)
2
OA No. 3894/2018
Item No.23/C-2
ORDER
Per Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A) The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant, who was appointed as Constable with the respondents - Delhi Police on 12.01.1984 and retired from the post of Sub-Inspector (Traffic) on 31.07.2018. He was suspended from service w.e.f. 16.12.2015 alleging acceptance of bribe of Rs.400/- vide order dated 23.12.2015 and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Section 15(2) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 vide order dated 08.02.2016. Summary of allegations and list of witnesses were served upon him on 10.05.2016, with the following summary of allegations:
"Summary of allegations It is alleged that you, HC Yash Pal No. 192/T (PIS No. 28940028, while posted in Shahdra Traffic Circle, a complaint was received from Shri Suresh Chandra in Shahdra Traffic Circłe by post along with a CD. It was alleged by the complainant that while the complainant was going from Khajoori towards Shastri Park on his motorcycle, he was stopped by you at 5 No. Pushta because was without Helmet and defective number plate. As per complaint, you told the complainant that you will prosecute him for defective number plate amounting to Rs. 2000/- instead of helmet etc. Finally the matter was settled and complainant gave you Rs. 400/- but No challan was issued to the complainant at that time. The complainant secretly made a video CD of the said incident and attached the same with the complaint. The video CD shows malafide intention on part of you, HC Yash Pal No. 92/T. The above act on part of you amounts to gross misconduct, involvement in corrupt practices, negligence/deriliction and unbecoming of police personal in the discharge of your official duties which renders you liable to be dealt with departmentally under the provision of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980."3 OA No. 3894/2018
Item No.23/C-2 1.1 Subsequently, the suspension cases of Traffic Unit were reviewed on 31.05.2016 by the Suspension Review Committee and the applicant was reinstated in service. After completion of examination of prosecution witness, the Enquiry Officer framed Charges against the applicant on account of gross misconduct, involvement in corrupt practices, negligence/dereliction and unbecoming of police personnel in discharge of official duties. In this regard, DE contemplation order was issued vide No.882- 906/HAP-T(D-I/ER) dated 10.02.2016. The applicant submitted written defence statement on 02.03.2017 to the EO vehemently denying the charges and produced a Defence Witness, who is a private person, and disclosed that the complainant had demanded Rs.2 lakhs in lieu of settlement of alleged sting operation. After conducting enquiry, the EO concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charge vide its report dated 06.04.2017. However, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) issued disagreement note dated 03.08.2017, in exercise of power vested under Rule 16(xii) of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 and raised three points for clarification by the applicant, which are as under:
"1. In the video CD it can be clearly seen that the defaulter is accepting RS. 400/- currency notes (04 notes each for Rs. 100/- demonstrations each) from someone but after accepting alleged amount of bribe, i.e. Rs. 400/- the defaulter has not issued any prosecution slip.
2. if it may be presumed that there is editing in the video CD and the amount received by the defaulter may be the 4 OA No. 3894/2018 Item No.23/C-2 amount for prosecution done somewhere else but it is worth to mention of M.V. Act here that as per the entitlement of the rank of the defaulter officer i.e. Rs. 100/- for each separate violation & u/s 179 for Rs. 500/- , but it can hardly be presumed that anyone may commit four violation simultaneously, while driving his two wheeler or light motor vehicle as only these category of vehicle can be prosecuted by the delinquent.
3. The enquiry Officer have neither conducted enquiry about the type of the amount received by the defaulter nor has the defaulter clarified this scene anywhere during the enquiry."
1.2. The applicant was served with copy of disagreement note along with the findings of the EO and was asked to submit his written representation, if any, within stipulated time. The applicant submitted detailed representation dated 23.08.2017 to the disagreement note, however, the Disciplinary Authority did not appreciate the same and imposed major penalty of "forfeiture of two years approved service, permanently, entailing proportionate reductions in his pay with immediate effect", vide impugned order dated 04.10.2017. The appeal dated 10.10.2017 preferred by the applicant was also rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.01.2018. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has filed this O.A. seeking the following relief(s):
"(i) To quash and set aside the impugned Orders {(Annexure A/1(Colly)} [(i) Order No. 65-67/P. Sec /Jt. CP/T/Ops. Delhi dated 25.01.2018 issued by Jt.
Comm. Of Police, Traffic Ops.: Delhi; (ii) Order (Disagreement Note) No.4797/HAP. T(D-I/ER) dated New Delhi the 03.08.2017 issued by Dy.
Comm. Of Police, Traffic (ER): Delhi; (iii) Order Dated: 6642-68/HAP-T(P- I/ER), Dated, dated, New Delhi 04.10.2017 issued by Dy. Comm. Of Police, Traffic (ER): Delhi] and direct the respondents to grant all the consequential benefits.
5OA No. 3894/2018 Item No.23/C-2
(ii) To direct the respondents to restore the position / status of the applicant prior to imposing the penalty by the respondents.
(iii) To direct respondents to release the arrears revising all the pensionary benefits and the pay and allowance.
(iv) To direct the respondents to produce the entire relevant records pertaining to this matter before this Hon'ble Tribunal for proper adjudication.
(v) To allow this OA with exemplary cost on the respondent for causing undue harassment.
(vi) To pass any other order or orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the complaint dated 'Nil' (page 34) was received along with CD through post received on 14.12.2015, wherein the complainant has mentioned that the date of incident was 17.11.2015 and time was 10.44, on the basis of which the applicant was suspended and charge sheeted vide order dated 08.02.2016. However, there was no reason explained for considerable delay in making the complaint. During deposition before EO, the complainant disclosed that he was wearing helmet but his pillion rider had no helmet, therefore, he was not looking in the CD, whereas in the complaint he had submitted that he was riding without helmet, therefore, he was stopped by the applicant. Thus, his statements are contrary in the complaint and in deposition before EO and he had played a conspiracy (sting operation) to implicate the applicant in fabricated story for exploitation by way of 6 OA No. 3894/2018 Item No.23/C-2 blackmailing and concealed the name of pillion rider, who was independent witness. He did not provide the original CD and, therefore, CD was not examined by the expert.
2.1 He further argued that the EO in his findings held that the evidence on record could not prove the charge against the applicant. However, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the same, by mentioning that the EO carried out the DE proceedings in standard format and some questions remained unanswered which needs further clarification, which shows that he has not shown any disagreement with the enquiry report. The submissions made by the applicant in his representation/appeal were neither considered by the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the action of the respondents is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, mala fide and in violation of Articles of 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the O.A. By placing reliance on the counter affidavit, he submitted that after due consideration, the Disciplinary Authority had imposed major penalty under appeal upon the applicant and his suspension period from 16.12.2015 to 30.05.2016 was also decided as 'period not spent on duty' vide order No.6642-68/HAP-T(P-I)/ER dated 04.10.2017. The Disciplinary Authority observing that the EO carried out the DE 7 OA No. 3894/2018 Item No.23/C-2 proceedings in standard format and some questions remained unanswered which needs further clarification, disagreed with the conclusion of EO and pointed out some shortcomings, as mentioned in the disagreement note. The applicant also submitted a detailed representation against the disagreement note, however, after evaluating the whole facts and considering the same, the Disciplinary Authority awarded the punishment to the applicant, as per the rules. The Appellate Authority carefully considered the appeal preferred by the applicant, however, observing that the applicant in his appeal mainly contended that it is not proved that the applicant had taken money from the complainant, there is no transcription of audio recording because it is not audible and the important witness who shot the said video is kept behind the curtains, but failed to produce any credible evidence which could justify his act of accepting Rs.400/-, rejected his appeal.
3.1 The learned counsel for the respondents also argued that the mainstay of the case is a CD provided by the complainant along with his complaint, in which the applicant was shown accepting Rs. 400/- from a traffic violator. However, the applicant failed to substantiate the fact of taking/accepting of four currency notes of Rs.100/- shown in the CD against non- issuance of challan, in turn, while he was holding a challan machine in his hand at the relevant point of time. The applicant 8 OA No. 3894/2018 Item No.23/C-2 nowhere claimed that he was not the person who has shown accepting/taking money in the video recording. Even the sole defence witness during questioning admitted that he went to the house of the complainant in the first week of December, 2015 to materialise the issue of the applicant, which also strengthen the content of the complaint. Accordingly, the case of the applicant has been dealt with as per the laid down procedure and, thus, there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the respondents and the O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the pleadings as well.
5. The applicant was issued Charge Memo dated 08.02.2016 and the EO after conducting the enquiry held that the prosecution 'failed to prove the charge' against him. However, the Disciplinary Authority noticing certain flaws in the enquiry, exercising the powers vested upon him under Rule 16(XII)(a) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980, disagreed with the findings of EO vide disagreement note dated 03.08.2017 with certain queries and sought representation from the applicant. The applicant filed detailed representation dated 23.08.2017 against the disagreement note and after carefully considering the same, keeping in view the entire record, the Disciplinary Authority imposed major penalty upon him. Thereafter, on an 9 OA No. 3894/2018 Item No.23/C-2 appeal preferred by him, the Appellate Authority after duly considering the entire record, disagreement notice, pleas taken by the applicant and also hearing him personally in the OR, rejected his appeal. As such, no procedural lapse has come to our notice.
6. Nevertheless, during the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant neither produced any credible/supporting evidence nor could be able to point out any procedural error while passing the impugned orders, to substantiate his allegation of mala fide in the action taken by the respondents. It is also not a case where there is absolutely no evidence against the applicant. Though the EO held in the enquiry that the prosecution failed to prove the charge, however, the same was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority by recording reasons, which was also communicated to the applicant. After considering the detailed representation and submissions of the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority holding him guilty, imposed major punishment vide order dated 04.10.2017, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority by rejecting his appeal, vide order dated 25.01.2018. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced below:
"I have carefully gone through the all the pros & cons evidence on record alongwith disagreement note and pleas taken by the appellant as whole. He was also heard in OR on 22.01.2018 in which he reiterated his written submission and stressed that the CD provided by the 10 OA No. 3894/2018 Item No.23/C-2 complainant is not got authenticated by any Govt. agency during DE proceedings and hence, the credibility of the said CD as well as the complainant who is in habit to use such type of videos against Govt. servants especially police official to extort money in consideration, is not certified The mainstay of the case is CD in which the appellant was shown accepting Rs.400/- from a motor cyclist. But, he is still failed to produce any credible evidence which could reasonably justified his act of accepting a total of Rs.400/- from a traffic violator and under what sections of MV Act. Moreover, he did not establish that he had issued cash challan of Rs.400/- against the same Hence, the pleas advanced by the ASI have no merit.
Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned punishment order at this stage. Therefore, the appeal by HC(now ASI) Yash Pal Singh, No. 192/T is hereby rejected."
Thus, the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity as per norms laid down.
7. It is well settled law that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is very limited to apparent illegality, mala fide or perverse finding and that, judicial bodies cannot sit in judgment over the decisions of the disciplinary authority with regard to evaluation of evidence and findings on the facts of the case. In this regard, the relevant paras of the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union of India & Ors., 1995 (6) SCC 749, are reproduced below:
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye 11 OA No. 3894/2018 Item No.23/C-2 of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal."
8. Having regard to the above settled position of law and entirety of the facts and circumstances, we do not find any error calling upon us to interfere with the view taken by the respondents and, therefore, the O.A. is dismissed being devoid of merit. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/jyoti/