Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Si Rajender Bhardwaj vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 23 December, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No.1416/2008 New Delhi this the 23rd day of December, 2009 HONBLE MR. L.K. JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A) HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) SI Rajender Bhardwaj PIS No.28740609 R/o 6-A Amar Colony, Nangloi, Delhi-110 041. .Applicant By Advocate: Shri Anil Singhal. Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Commissioner of Police, Police Head Quarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Joint Commissioner of Police, Northern Range, PHQ, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. Dy. Commissioenr of Police, Central District, Dariya Ganj, Delhi Gate, Delhi. .Respondents By Advocate: Shri Ram Kanwar. O R D E R
Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member(J) Applicant has challenged order of initiating DE dated 1.11.2006 (Annexure A-1), summary of allegations (Annexure A-2), findings dated 7.6.2007 (Annexure A-3), order of punishment dated 6.8.2007 (Annexure A-4) and appellate order dated 13.2.2008 (Annexure A-5) whereby his 3 years of approved service was forfeited on the ground that the investigation of case was handed over to the applicant on 9.3.2006 and prior to it no case diary was maintained by the earlier Inquiry Officer. On investigation since applicant found no evidence, he moved an application through Additional Public Prosecutor on 22.4.2006 for discharge of the accused. The court discharged the accused after being satisfied that there was nothing in the matter, therefore, merely because he had not consulted the SHO or ACP, it would not amount to a misconduct specially when no ill-motives are attached to the actions of applicant. At best it can be stated to be an irregularity for which the punishment of 3 years approved service is too excessive. Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on Union of India Vs. J. Ahmad reported in AIR 1979 SC 1022.
2. Respondents on the other hand have explained that case FIR No.27/05 u/s 7.10.55 E.C. Act was registered on the complaint of one Dalip Kumar against Kamal Kishore S/o Kanhaiya Lal R/o 5859/4, Gali No.6, Dev Nagar, Delhi who was arrested in this case. Later, during investigation, report from the FSO was taken and the FSO gave his report dated 1.2.2005 stating therein that on measuring the kerosene oil of the depot it was found to be 369 ltrs. whereas according to the stock register of depot, it should be 367.3 ltrs. Since the record and stock of the oil depot, as per the report of FSO, was found in proper order, SI Jai Pal Singh moved an application duly forwarded to the prosecution branch for legal opinion to proceed further in the case. Chief Prosecutor/Central District opined that it be investigated if the accused committed any breach of terms and conditions of license and after finalization of investigation by the IO, SHO should send the file along with his own conclusion of the investigation with comments of the ACP. On 9.3.2006 the applicant was posted at PS Prasad Nagar and the investigation of this case was handed over to him. Later on he being the subsequent IO of the case, instead of finalization of the investigation, submitted an application before the Honble Court of Smt. Raj Rani Mitra, MM, Tis Hazari, Delhi that as per the report of FSO, the stock of the kerosene oil depot was found in proper order and from the investigation nothing adverse evidence was found against the accused, therefore, the accused may be discharged. It is submitted by the respondents that applicant did not maintain any case diary nor got the application for discharge forwarded by the SHO. He did not bring matter to the notice of the SHO. The MM discharged the accused in this case on 22.4.2006 on the request of the IO.
3. In view of above, a regular DE was initiated. The charge stood proved on the basis of evidence which came on record. The authority has inflicted the punishment after considering everything, therefore, this case calls for no interference. The same may be dismissed.
4. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that since case had already been registered, the applicant should have finalized the investigation and sent the file to the SHO so that he could have forwarded the file along with his own conclusion and comments of ACP to the Chief Prosecutor. The motive of seeking this opinion was to reach at a fruitful conclusion as to whether to charge sheet the accused but the applicant without collecting the evidence, which the Chief Prosecutor had suggested requested for discharge of the accused. He thus totally failed to comply with the directions of the Chief Prosecutor. He could not give any cogent reasons as to why he had not collected the evidence, so required by the Chief Prosecutor. Moreover, simply because the previous I.O. had not submitted the case diary, it does not mean applicant should also not write the case diary. It does not minimize his misconduct. Every I.O. is supposed to maintain his case diary to show the progress/outcome of the investigation. There is no such bar on a I.O. not to write his case diary if his predecessor had not submitted the case diary. Since he had not complied with the directions, he has rightly been punished by the authorities.
5. We have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings.
6. Admittedly when earlier Inquiry Officer had sought opinion from the Chief Prosecutor/Central District he had opined that it be investigated if the accused had committed any breach of terms and condition of the license and after finalization of investigation by the IO, SHO should send the file along with own conclusion of the investigation with comments of ACP. At this stage investigation was handed over to the applicant, therefore, he was required to investigate whether the accused had committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the license or not. Admittedly, neither any further investigation was carried out by the applicant nor he maintained the case diary. Moreover, the Chief Prosecutor had directed that after the investigation is over, SHO should send the file with his own conclusion and the comments of the ACP. Instead of reporting the matter to the SHO, applicant on his own moved an application for discharge of the accused. These are admitted facts and this was exactly the charge against the applicant that he neither prepared the case diary nor routed the file through proper channel, therefore, the charge stands proved.
7. Simply because no case diary was written by the earlier I.O. it does not mean that applicant should also not write the case diary. Moreover, writing of case diary while investigating the matter is the duty of police officials, therefore, not writing the same amounts to a misconduct. It is correct that no ill motives are attached but nonetheless if due procedure is not followed and everyone starts taking decision at his own level without bothering for superiors, the whole system would get vitiated, therefore, it cannot be stated that no misconduct was committed by the applicant.
8. Counsel for the applicant strenuously argued that the accused was discharged by the court. We are not concerned with the outcome of the criminal case here but the conduct of a police official. When directions are given to further investigate and report to the SHO, applicant was under a duty to follow those directions. Since he neither maintained the case diary nor gave his report to the SHO, on the contrary moved the application on his own for discharge of the accused, charge against him stands proved. Judgment in the case of J. Ahmad is not relevant here as facts of that case are different.
9. Honble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that once charge is proved than the quantum of punishment should be left to the authorities to decide. 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.
10. 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. In Govt. of Tamil Nadu vs. A. Rajapandian reported in AIR 1995 (1) SCC 216 Hoble Supreme Court held Tribunal cannot sit as a court of appeal over the decision based on the findings of Inquiry Officer in disciplinary proceedings. So long decision is based on relevant material, it is not the function of the Tribunal to review the same and reach a different conclusion than that of the disciplinary authority.
11. In view of above, this case calls for no interference. The OA is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER) (L.K. JOSHI)
MEMBER (J) VICE CHAIRMAN (A)
Rakesh