Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Asi Jai Chand S/O Umrao Singh vs Commissioner Of Police on 10 February, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.404 of 2012 Reserved on : 7th February, 2012 Date of decision : 10th February, 2012 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) ASI Jai Chand S/o Umrao Singh, R/o RZ-106 B, B Block, Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh, New Delhi. Applicant ( By Shri G. S. Rana with Ms. Narmada, Advocate ) Versus 1. Commissioner of Police, Delhi, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Joint Commissioner of Police, Southern Range, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. Dy. Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi. 4. Enquiry Officer through DCP/South Distt., New Delhi Respondents O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Sequel to a departmental enquiry, Jai Chand, an ASI (Exe.) in Delhi Police, the applicant herein, has been visited with the punishment of withholding of his three future increments with cumulative effect with immediate effect, vide order dated 14.05.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi. His suspension period from 22.02.2006 to 19.10.2006 has also been ordered to be treated as not spent on duty for all intents and purposes. The appeal against the order aforesaid has since been rejected by the Joint Commissioner of Police, Southern Range, New Delhi, vide order dated 11.02.2008. It is against these two orders that the present Original Application has been filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. We may mention at the very outset that the OA would be hopelessly barred by limitation, the same being only one year, as provided under Section 21 of the Act of 1985. There is no application accompanying the OA seeking condonation of delay. The order passed by the appellate authority, at the end recites as follows:
Let the appellant be informed accordingly. When confronted with the position that the present OA would be barred by time, learned counsel representing the applicant would contend that the applicant was not supplied copy of the order passed by the appellate authority. We do not find any pleading made in that regard in the OA. Only in the list of dates and events it has been mentioned that When no appellate order could be served to the applicant a request was made to the disciplinary authority to supply a copy of order passed on appeal of the applicant. The date mentioned against the averment as mentioned above is 27.12.2010. It is not possible for this Tribunal to believe that the applicant would sleep over his rights and would make no enquiries as regards the fate of his appeal for a period of more that two years. Further, there is no averment that the appellate authority had wrongly mentioned that the information be given to the applicant or that even though so mentioned, no information was given to the applicant. Be that as it may, once the OA is barred by time, and if the applicant had sufficient reasons for seeking condonation of delay, an application in that regard ought to have been filed. There would be no occasion for us to enter upon the controversy on merits, as it has been recently held by the Honble Supreme Court in D. C. S. Negi v Union of India & others [SLP(C) No.7956/2011, CC 3709/2011], decided on 7.3.2011 that the Tribunal is a creature of the statute and cannot enter upon merits of the controversy if the lis is barred by limitation. We may refer to the following pertinent observations of the Apex Court in that behalf:
A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced section makes it clear that the Tribunal cannot admit an application unless the same is made within the time specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21(1) or Section 21(2) or an order is passed in terms of sub-section (3) for entertaining the application after the prescribed period. Since Section 21(1) is couched in negative form, it is the duty of the Tribunal to first consider whether the application is within limitation. An application can be admitted only if the same is found to have been made within the prescribed period or sufficient cause is shown for not doing so within the prescribed period and an order is passed under Section 21(3).
In the present case, the Tribunal entertained and decided the application without even adverting to the issue of limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to explain this omission by pointing out that in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, no such objection was raised but we have not felt impressed. In our view, the Tribunal cannot abdicate its duty to act in accordance with the statute under which it is established and the fact that an objection of limitation is not raised by the respondent/non applicant is not at all relevant. In some of the cases, however, we have seen that the matters are remitted to us, particularly, if our observations as regards the OA being barred by limitation may not find favour with the higher judicial forum. That being so, we may briefly touch upon the merits of the controversy. The enquiry officer, as per provisions contained in the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, after recording statements of W/Const. Menka (PW-1), HC Jai Kishan (PW-2), Const. Kailash Chand (PW-3), ASI Dalip Singh (PW-4), Phire Ram (PW-5), ASI Om Prakash (PW-6) and Jagtar Singh (PW-7), framed the following charge against the applicant:
I, Mohan Singh, ACP/PG Cell/South Distt. , hereby charge you ASI Jai Chand, No. 2767/SD(Now 240/D) that while you were posted PP Saket on 1/2/06, DD No. 10 P.P. Saket P.S. Malviya Nagar was marked to you according to which a person named Bhagwan/Bhagya Narain s/o Daya Ram was admitted in G.M. Modi Hospital who has injured in an accident while crossing Press Enclave. You return to the Police Post and lodged a report vide DD No. 27 mentioning therein that on receipt of DD No. 10 you had gone to G. M. Modi Hospital and collected MLC No.206/06. On enquiry it was found by you that the patient was shifted to some unknown Govt. Hospital. From the telephone No. of the person who had got the patient admitted to Modi Hospital as written on MLC, you ASI Jai Chand came to know that the accident has occurred at Chirag Delhi Chowk near handed over MLC No. 206/06 to ASI Dalip Singh for taking necessary action and you filed DD entry No. 10 after lodging the above mentioned facts in DD No.27.
On 20.2.2006 it came to the notice that the body of Bhagya Narain s/o Dwarika Ray admitted to S. J. Hospital on 1.2.06 was lying unattendent in the mortuary for final disposal. During enquiry it was found that deceased Bhagya Narain was admitted first to G. M. Modi Hospital and later on to S.J. Hospital on 01.02.2006 by one Shri Phira Ram and a case vide FIR No. 213/06 dated 22.02.2006 u/s 279/304A IPC P.S. Malviya Nagar was registered on his statement and the investigation was initiated. Thus you, ASI Jai Chand, showed carelessness and negligence in dealing with the information of accident vide DD No. 10 and left the dead body of Bhagya Narainunattended for about 22 days. After receiving the MLC of Bhagya Narain you had gone to P.P. Madangir to handover the MLC as the place of accident falls in the jurisdiction of Police Post Madangir I/C P.P. Madangir had regused to accept the MLC on the plea that there should be some statement showing the place of occurrence. But you, ASI Jai Chand did not brought the facts of the incident into the knowledge of senior officers for not taking action by P.P. Madangir officials into the matter i.e. dispute over place of accident. You did not record the statement of Shri Phira Ram or any other person confirming the place of occurrence. Further more, you did not handover the MLC to ASI Dalip Singh as mentioned by you in DD No. 27 dated 01/02/2006 and kept it with you. This shows that you took the matter in casual manner and did not act5 properly and professionally The above act on the part of you, ASI Jai Chand amounts to gross misconduct, negligence and dereliction in the discharge of you official duties which renders you for punishment under the provision of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. [[ The applicant was given opportunity to lead evidence in defence, which he availed, and examined Const. Arvind Kumar (DW-1), HC Devender Singh (DW-2) and R. K. Garg, Lab. Asstt., S.J. Hospital, (DW-3). The discussion made by the enquiry officer on the evidence laid before it, reads as follows:
From the perusal of statements of P.Ws, D.Ws, Defence Statement and documents/exhibits on file it is found that on 1.2.06 and accident was taken place near Police Post/ Petrol Pump Cirag Delhi Village. In this accident one Shri Bhagya Narain s/o Sh. Daya Ram R/o Village Chirag Delhi had sustained injuries in his legs and he rolled on the road due to this accident and suddenly came in front of a car, which was being driven by Shri Phira Ram s/o Sh. Kali Ram R/o Village Dera P.S. Mehrauli, New Delhi. He immediately applied brakes and took the injured in his car in G.M. Modi Hospital where MLC No.206/06 of injured Shri Bhagya Narain wa prepared and the information of this accident was passed to PP Saket vide DD No. 10 i.e. Exhibit PW-2/A mentioning therein that Bhagwas s/o Daya Ram was admitted in the G.M. Hospital due to injuries which were caused in an accident while he was crossing Press Enclave Road. The said DD entry i.e. Exhibit W-2/A was handed over to ASI Jai Chand for necessary action. ASI Jai Chand went at G.M. Modi Hospital and collected the MLC i.e. Exhibit PW-6/A of injured Bhagya Narain. He came to know that the injured was already shifted to some other Govt. Hospital. He then contacted Shri Phire Ram who had got admitted the injured in G.M. Modi Hospital on his Mobile No. mentioned in the MLC. He also came to know from him that the accident had taken place near Police Post/Petrol Pump Chirag Delhi which falls in the jurisdiction of P.P.Madangir. So he went at P.P. Madangir where I/C P.P. Madangir and ASI Dalip Singh met him and he casually informed them that the accident was occurred in their area. They refused to accept the MLC and was asked to come with the statement showing the place of occurrence. He returned back to PP Saket and Lodged in entry vide DD No.27 i.e. Exhibit P.W-2/B. The portion that he had handed over the MLC to ASI Dalip Singh mentioned the DD Exhibit PW-2/B is found incurred considering the statement of PW-4 ASI Dalip Singh, P.W.4 had stated clearly that defaulter ASI Jai Chand was asked to come with the statement showing the place of occurrence but he did not come back. From the perusal of MLC it is clear that the place of occurrence is mentioned as in front of Chirag Delhi Police Check Post. It appears that defaulter ASI Jai Chand did not go through MLC deeply and therefore he contacted PW-5 Shri Phire Ram on his Mobile Phone and from him (PW-5) he came to know that he accident had taken place in the jurisdiction of P.P. Madangir. It also appears that the officials of PP Madangir did not see the MLC properly and that is why he had telephoned PW-5 Shri Phire Ram. It is also unbelievable that PW Shri Phire Ram had not told defaulter ASI Jai Chand that where he got admitted injured or where he was going to admit the injured. And further, why defaulter ASI Jai Chand did not ask the officials of PP Madangir to speak Shri Phire Ram on the given telephone to confirm the place of accident. The original MLC is not available with the present I.O. (PW-6) and the photo copy of MLC is on the file. It is strange how photocopy of the MLC Came on file. If the MLC was handed over to ASI Dalip Singh they who got it photo copied and place on file. It shows that the original MLC is still with ASI Jai Chand, as no PW or DW has said that the photocopy of MLC was obtained from the official of PP Madangir. After registration of case, initially the investigation of the case remained with defaulter ASI Jai Chand and it is clear that he placed the photo copy of MLC on the file and kept the original MLC with him. It cannot be believed that any officer to whom a MLC of an injured person is handed over after confirming the place of occurrence will not take action or make entry in their DD register. In the given circumstances the statement of PW ASI Dalip Singh cannot be thrown way and hence his statement is relied upon without shadows of doubt. Again PW-7 Shri Jagtar Singh, the then SHO/Malviya Nagar who enquired into the matter and submitted his report dated 2.3.06 to senior officer i.e. Exhibit PW-7/A has deposed that defaulter ASI Jai Chand did not inform the senior officers that the officials of PP Madangir were not taking action into the matter. He should have been informed senior officer. The dead body of injured remained lying in Mortuary of S.J. Hospital for 22 days unattended due to the negligent act of ASI Jai Chand. On his persuasion of the matter PW Shri Phire Ram was called and his statement was recorded. And after registration of case the dead body was disposed off. The contention of defaulter ASI Jai Chand that he had no information about the death of Bhagya Narain cannot be trusted. There are some cutting in the Register i.e. Exhibited PW-3/A-2 and the deposition of DW-2 is not relied up as he was earlier working with defaulter ASI Jai Chand. The statement of D.W-1 is also misleading as he has not mentioned in his statements regarding whom (injured) he had received telephone message from duty Constable of S.J. Hospital. He should have been registered the message in the DD register if it was regarding a injured Bhagya Narain and should have been filed in context with the DD entries lodged by defaulter ASI Jai Chand and he should have informed PS Ambedkar Nagar personally. All the contentions of defaulter ASI Jai Chand have no untenable as it has been proved that he did handover the MLC to the officials PP Madangir. This shows that he took the matter in casual manner and did not act properly and professionally. The conclusion arrived at by the enquiry officer was that the charge framed against the applicant stood proved. The disciplinary authority by a speaking order, in consideration of the defence projected by the applicant, agreed with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. Same is the position as regards the order passed by the appellate authority. The pleadings made in the OA would reveal that only general grounds, without specifying any infirmity in the procedure or illegality in the orders passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities, have been taken. The only emphasis seems to be on the respondents taking into consideration extraneous material and the present being a case of no evidence. The omnibus plea raised by the applicant, without specifying a particular defect in the procedure, or in the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, so confirmed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities, cannot be appreciated.
3. Finding no merit in this Original Application, we dismiss the same both on limitation as also on merits, in limine.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/