Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Jagbir Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 12 October, 2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-332/2015
Reserved on : 09.10.2018.
Pronounced on : 12.10.2018.
Hon'ble Ms. Praveen Mahajan, Member (A)
Sh. Jagbir Singh,
Age 47 years,
S/o late Sh. Baldev Singh,
R/o E-1, Type-IV, PS Inderpuri,
New Delhi-110012. .... Applicant
(through Sh. S.K. Gupta, Advocate)
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 (Security),
Police Headquarter,
MSO Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
4. Dy. Commissioner of Police (Security)(HQ),
Vinay Marg, New Delhi. .... Respondents
(through Sh. Vijay Pandita, Advocate)
2 OA-332/2015
ORDER
Briefly stated, the facts of the current O.A. are that the applicant while working as SHO, Police Station, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, New Delhi received a communication dated 10.01.2012 vide which he was called upon to explain his alleged inaction and casual approach for not providing around the clock police protection, to witnesses, as ordered by Court of ASJ. The applicant submitted his explanation and also appeared before Addl. Commissioner of Police, personally to explain his case. Thereafter, the applicant received a show cause notice dated 08.06.2012 from the office of respondent No.4 alleging that in pursuance to the order of Hon‟ble Addl. Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, a detailed enquiry was conducted which revealed that FIR No. 73/2010 u/s 392/397/34 of IPC was registered on 23.03.2010. There were six accused, out of which, three were arrested but the remaining three were not arrested and three accused were in JC. The complainant and his wife were receiving threatening calls, hence the Court ordered round the clock immediate armed police protection but the same has not been provided. It was alleged that there was negligence and dereliction of official duties by the applicant, due to which lapse, it was proposed to censure his conduct. The applicant was given 15 days time to explain himself.
3 OA-332/2015
2. The applicant in his reply, explained that the Hon‟ble Court has passed the aforesaid orders on 16.08.2011. The order was received in the Police Station at about 4.00 P.M. on 16.08.2011, and the armed police protection was provided at the house of Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta and his wife Smt. Arti Gupta within half an hour (4.25 p.m.) of its receipt. The applicant submits that Constable Kamal (duly armed) was assigned this duty to provide protection to the complainant and senior officers were informed accordingly. Subsequently, a PSO was arranged from Distt. Lines vide order dated 27.08.2012. However, the Disciplinary Authority ignoring the reply confirmed the show cause notice and conduct of the applicant was censured. Thereupon, the applicant submitted his appeal before respondent No.3, who also rejected the same on 19.11.2013 .
3. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed the current O.A. seeking the following relief:-
"Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure-A-1) and also the impugned order dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure-A-2) as received on 24.01.2014 with all consequential benefits."
4. In reply, the respondents have taken preliminary objection that this O.A. is barred by Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The respondents submit that a show cause notice for censure was issued to the applicant on 08.06.2012 for his gross misconduct, 4 OA-332/2015 negligence, carelessness and dereliction in the discharge of his official duties on the allegation that in pursuance to the Hon‟ble Court of Ld. ASJ order dated 05.12.2011 (wrongly mentioned later the date has been mentioned as 16.08.2011), a detailed enquiry into the matter was got conducted, which revealed that a case vide FIR No.73/10 u/s 392/397/34 IPC was registered on 23.03.2010 at Police Station, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Delhi. The Hon‟ble Court had ordered for round the clock immediate armed police protection to the complainants but the same had not been provided by the applicant (who was the SHO concerned), showing inaction and carelessness on his part.
5. Applicant‟s explanation was called by the Addl. CP/Central District, Delhi on 10.01.2012. The applicant submitted his written explanation and was also heard in O.R. His written as well as oral submissions were not found convincing, hence a show cause notice was issued to him. The applicant‟s reply to the show cause notice was not found satisfactory. The Disciplinary Authority imposed upon him a penalty of censure on 10.10.2012 which was subsequently confirmed by Appellate Authority on 19.11.2013. It was held that the applicant had performed his official duty as SHO in a casual manner and no sincere efforts were made by the staff working under him to provide security to the victim, who was receiving threatening calls.
5 OA-332/2015
6. I have gone through the facts of the case and also considered the oral submissions made during the course of hearing by both sides.
6.1 The applicant has been censured vide order dated 10.10.2012 due to lack of supervisory failure and for performing his official duty as SHO, in a negligent manner. The appeal filed against the order of the Disciplinary Authority has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 19.11.2013. The cause of action for the respondents based on which this penalty has been imposed on the applicant is available by way of a show cause notice dated 08.06.2012. The same reads as under:-
"An explanation of Inspr. Jagbir Singh No. D/3288 (PIS No.16910110 (the then SHO/DBG Road) was called by the Addl. CP/Central District, Delhi vide his office No. 244-46/HAP/AC-I/C dated 10.01.2012, on the allegations that in pursuance to the Court‟s order Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, a detailed enquiry into the matter was got conducted, which revealed that a case vide FIR No. 73/10 u/s 392/397/34 IPC was registered on 23.03.2010 at PS DBG Road, Delhi. In the said case, there were six accused persons, out of them three were arrested, but remaining three accused persons were not arrested although the case was more than one and half years old. Three accused were in J.C. and the case was pending trial. The victim/complainants i.e. Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta and his wife Smt. Arti Gupta were receiving threatening calls. On this, the Court had ordered for round the clock immediate armed police protection, but the same had not been provided to witnesses, which showed inaction and casual approach on the part of Inspr. Jagbir Singh No. D/3288, the then SHO/DBG Road, Delhi towards his official duties.
In response to the Explanation Notice, Inspr. Jagbir Singh No.D/3288 has submitted his written explanation/reply. He was also heard in O.R. by the Addl. C.P./Central District, Delhi. His written as well as oral submission is not found convincing.
The above act on the part of Inspr. Jagbir Singh No.D/3288 amounts to gross misconduct, negligence, carelessness and dereliction in the discharge of his official duties.
6 OA-332/2015 Therefore, Inspr. Jagbir Singh No. D/3288 is hereby called upon to Show Cause as to why his conduct should not be censured for the above lapse. His written reply in this regard, if any, should reach this office within 15 days from the date of its receipt failing which, it will be presumed that he has nothing to say in his defence and the matter will be decided ex-parte on its merit."
7. A perusal of the show cause notice shows that grounds taken for issuance of censure to the applicant is primarily that the victim Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta and his wife Smt. Arti Gupta were receiving threatening calls, due to which Court of ASJ had ordered for round the clock immediate armed police protection to them, but the same was not provided to the witnesses, exhibiting inaction and dereliction of official duty on part of the applicant.
8. In his reply to the show cause notice, the applicant has explained that immediately after the Court order dated 16.08.2011, a round the clock police protection was provided to the witnesses. The applicant states that:-
"In this context applicant would humbly submit that the court had passed the order on 16.8.11. The order was received in the police station in the evening around 4 P.M. On 16.8.11 itself the police protection to the witnesses was provided vide DD No. 48-B at 4.25 P.M. P.S DBG Road. Const Kamal No 1873/C (duly armed) was deployed at the house of Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta to provide protection to him and his wife. Senior officers had been apprised accordingly. Subsequently a PSO was arranged from Distt lines vide order No 4182-84/CB/C dated 27.8.12.
On 27.8.11 itself Distt lines had provided Const Narender No. 798/C vide DD No 31 with the directions to report at 17/559 Joshi Road Delhi. Further vide order No 5115-16/CB/C dated 19.11.11 a second PSO for night had also started performing duty at the residence of Sh. Vijay Kumar as requested by him."
7 OA-332/2015 The details of the aforementioned facts have not been disputed by the respondents. Nor has it been contended that the averments made by the applicant are factually incorrect.
9. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents Sh. Vijay Pandita took the Bench through various Court orders dated 17.08.2011, 01.11.2011 & 05.12.2011. He explained at length the background of the case and tried to explain how the applicant had failed in his supervisory duties. A bare perusal of the aforesaid orders shows that the issues discussed therein pertain to the past history of the case, and how the inaction on part of police personnel (comprising of ground level officers & supervisory officers) led to systemic failure. However, the incidents and issues discussed in the aforesaid order, do not form part of the allegations contained in the show cause notice. Nor was the order dated 16.08.2011, alleged non compliance of which, led to issue of show cause notice, available for perusal.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the applicant Sh. S.K. Gupta emphasized that the role of the applicant for which he has been censured has to be confined within the framework of charges levelled against him in the show cause notice. He argued that the applicant carried out his mandate meticulously as per directions of the Court order dated 16.08.2011. Vide these orders, he had been 8 OA-332/2015 directed to provide security to the victims, which he immediately complied with, as is evident from his reply to the show cause notice. Hence, the punishment imposed upon him is unfair and without application of mind.
11. I find significant merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant. The impugned order dated 10.10.2012 gives the background of the case and focuses on the role of another colleague of the applicant, who received copy of the threatening email. Interestingly, para-4 of the impugned order itself confirms the fact that the applicant provided security to the victim after the written order of the Court. The observations of the Disciplinary Authority in Para-4 of the order dated 10.10.2012 read as under:-
"It is bounden duty of the SHO to provide security to the victim. He is victim in a robbery case. He could not muster courage to appear in Court for deposing his statement on 14.07.2011 as a result he did not appear in the Court on given time. Though he was provided security on 16.08.2011 after the written order of the Court, but that is too late. It is not proactive policy. In fact, Inspr. Jagbir Singh, the then SHO should have provided security to the victim as soon as he received the threatening call and should have given support so that he can depose his statement before the Court on 14.07.2012. The victim was made all possible efforts to intimate the Department about threatening calls by complaints, e-mail, but no sincere efforts have been made by HC Kailash and SI Arun Kumar. The local police and senior officers failed to convince the Court about the misconduct of their subordinates. In view of the above facts, it is transpired that Inspr. Jagbir Singh No. D/3288 (the then SHO/DBG Road) has performed his official duty as SHO in a casual manner and no sincere efforts were made by the staff working under him to provide security to the victim, who was receiving threatening calls. I have no other option, but to confirm the instant Show Cause Notice. Hence, the Show Cause Notice for Censure issued to Inspr. Jagbir Singh No. D/3288, is confirmed and his conduct is hereby censured accordingly."
9 OA-332/2015
12. The show case notice dated 08.06.2012 does not touch upon other facts and incidents which the Disciplinary Authority seems to have taken cognizance of while „Censuring‟ the applicant. The Tribunal can only adjudicate the correctness or otherwise of the punishment based upon the allegations or charges contained in the show cause notice. Those charges have been categorically answered by the applicant, and even admitted as correct by the Disciplinary Authority himself as brought out in Para-11 above. By way of show cause notice dated 08.06.2012, the role of the applicant as SHO has been levelled as negligent for non compliance of Court order dated 16.08.2011, for not providing round the clock security to the complainants. It is this specific allegation which led to imposition of penalty of "censure". However, as can be seen, the Disciplinary Authority himself, in the aforesaid order, has admitted that the orders of the Court dated 16.08.2011 were carried out by the applicant.
13. While not commenting the role of the applicant in his not being pro active prior to the Court order dated 16.08.2011, the fact remains that the punishment of „censure‟ emerged as a result of the show cause notice dated 08.06.2012 in which the allegation is confined to not providing round the clock armed police protection to the victim as per Court orders. This, as discussed above, is not factually correct.
10 OA-332/2015
14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the orders dated 10.10.2012 and 19.11.2013, flowing from the allegations contained in the show cause notice dated 08.06.2012, are found to be faulty and are set aside. The O.A. is allowed No costs.
(Praveen Mahajan) Member (A) /vinita/