Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Asi Rama Shankar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 10 May, 2011
-CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A. No. 4092/2010 New Delhi this the 10th day of May, 2011 Honble Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Mr. Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) 1. ASI Rama Shankar S/o Late Sh. Shiv Kumar Mishra R/o 169, PTS Colony, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-17. 2. HC (Dvr.) Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Lokram R/o VPO : Kheri Khumar, Distt : Jhajjar, Haryana. 3. Ct. Narender Kumar S/o Sh. Sardar Singh R/o C-2/158, Sector-5, Rohini, New Delhi. -Applicants. (By Advocate: Shri Anil Singal) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Commissioner of Police, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Addl. Commissioner of Police PCR, Police Head Quarter, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. Dy. Commissioner of Police PCR, Police Head Quarter, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. -Respondents (By Advocate: Shri B.N.P. Pathak) O R D E R
Honble Mr. Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) This OA has been filed by an ASI, HC (Dvr) and Constable, challenging the penalty of Censure imposed upon them vide order dated 08.05.2009 (Annexure A-2) and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 23.07.2010 (Annexure A-3) confirming the punishment. Also under challenge is the show cause notice dated 29.01.2009 issued in the matter.
2. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the OA, are that a show cause notice for censure was issued to the applicants on the allegation that G-27 (a Surveillance team) had informed the CPCR that the staff on MPV O-32 (the vehicle of the applicants) was taking gratification from a truck without number plate loaded with cattle at New Rohtak Road near Tibia College in the night of 29/30.10.2008. The truck could not be traced. The staff of MPV O-32 did not inform the Control Room regarding the truck without number plate and this showed their malafide intention in the matter. After considering the reply to the show cause notice, the penalty of censure was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The appeal in the matter made by the applicant was also rejected and the punishment confirmed.
3. The case of the applicants is that the punishment imposed on them is arbitrary, malafide, unreasonable and in violation of the principles of natural justice and based only on suspicion. According to them, no complainant has deposed against them nor is their evidence to prove demand/acceptance of illegal gratification. It is also submitted that the surveillance team G-27 had itself not made efforts to stop the truck or record the statement of the truck driver from whom the applicants are alleged to have taken bribe money. Further, it is stated that there was no misconduct on the part of the applicants as the surveillance team had parked their car in front of MPV (the vehicle of the applicants) and, therefore, their way was blocked and thus the driver of the truck went away. It is stated that the applicants had signalled to the driver to stop the truck but he never stopped and they could not chase it because the way was blocked by the G-27 car. As regards not informing the CPCR, it is submitted that the incident had taken place around 11.15 p.m. when there was rush of transmission on the Oscar Net and due to this information in regard to the truck could not be transmitted to CPCR.
4. The respondents have filed their counter and have opposed the application and have stated that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authorities have imposed the punishment in question after considering all relevant factors and after following due procedure, and also after hearing the applicant in OR on 29.04.2009 and that the orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities have been passed in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject and do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
5. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have also been through the pleadings.
6. In terms of the Show Cause Notice, the allegations against the applicants are on two counts one that of taking gratification from the truck driver and second of not informing the CPCR regarding the truck. The applicants have evidently been punished only on the second count, of not informing the CPCR about the truck, because the allegation of taking gratification would have, if accepted, resulted in regular disciplinary proceedings for a severe major penalty. With regard to the second aspect of not informing the CPCR, it is not disputed by the applicants that they were present on the spot on the night concerned and the applicants have also stated that they chased the truck initially but it got away. They also accept that they did not inform the CPCR about the matter. The explanation given by them is that they could not do so as it was around 11.15 p.m. and at that time there was rush on the Oscar Net. This explanation has not been accepted by the disciplinary authority and, therefore, a censure has been imposed.
7. It is well settled that the disciplinary authority and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact finding authorities, have exclusive power in disciplinary matters to consider the evidence and arrive at conclusions based on such evidence and are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment to maintain discipline. The executive authorities must be allowed considerable discretion to arrive at their own conclusions and take such action with regard to imposition of punishment as is considered necessary by them. It is also well settled that in normal circumstances, on findings of facts, which are based on evidence, the disciplinary authority should come to its own conclusion and there is little scope for interference. This Tribunal cannot sit as a court of appeal and re-appraise the whole matter. [Union of India & Ors. v. B.K. Srivastava), 1998 (1) ATJ 166]. We are also conscious that only if there is absolutely no evidence in regard to a charge and the findings are perverse, in that event alone, the Tribunal would be duty bound to interfere. This is not the case here. The Apex Court in Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar Haveli v. Gulabhia M. Lad (2010 (3) AISLJ 28) held:
The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising power of judicial review, the High Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the Disciplinary Authority, and/or on appeal the Appellate Authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularities or that would shock the conscience of the Court/Tribunal.
The present case would not fall in the category of cases that warrant interference.
As already observed the circumstances of the case are that the applicants were present on the spot but the truck got away and no report was made to the CPCR. An efficient team of three police officials would normally be expected to have been able to apprehend and stop the truck and, if not, to report the same immediately to the CPCR for further action. There was no reason for the surveillance team to make a complaint against the applicants if they were not found to be inefficient in discharge of their duties and not alert enough. The executive authorities, who deal with such cases all the time, have not accepted the explanation of the applicants for not informing the CPCR and their decisions cannot be considered unreasonable. Any interference in their decisions and the penalty imposed could have serious repercussions in the matter of maintenance of efficiency in the police force. We also note that the applicants have been given full opportunity to have their say in the matter, by way of issue of a show cause notice and also by hearing in O.R. Thus, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice.
8. In view of the above discussion, the OA is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(Shailendra Pandey) (M.L. Chauhan)
Member (A) Member (J)
cc.