Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Hari Om (189/A) vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 22 May, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. No.2134/2008
New Delhi, this the 22nd day of May, 2009
HONBLE MR. L.K.JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A)
HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J)
Hari Om (189/A),
Son of late Shri Manohar Lal,
R/o 11-733, Ansal Palam Vihar,
Gurgaon, Haryana .Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Shyam Babu)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Through its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Sachivalaya, Players Building,
IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. Joint Commissioner of Police (Crimes),
Police Headquarters, ITO,
New Delhi
3. Deputy Commissioner of Police,
IGI Airport,
New Delhi .Respondents
(By Advocate: Smt. Sumedha Sharma)
ORDER
Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) Following the initiation and holding of a departmental enquiry against the Applicant, Head Constable in Delhi Police, a punishment of forfeiture of one years approved service permanently was awarded to him and his suspension period from 14.12.2005 to 18.01.2006 was also decided as period not spent on duty by order dated 20.06.2007 of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, IGI Airport, New Delhi, the disciplinary authority in this case. The appeal preferred against the order of the disciplinary authority was rejected by the Joint Commissioner of Police, Crime, Delhi by order dated 30.06.2008. Both the aforesaid orders have been challenged in this OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. Disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the Applicant by the disciplinary authority by order dated 10.02.2006. The following summary of allegation was served on the Applicant:
It is alleged against Head Constable Hari Om, No.189/A (PIS No.28821411) that, while posted at Police Station IGI Airport on 14.12.2005, Inspr. Dharambir Singh Joshi, SHO/IGIA called the SI (Record) and other staff including Head Constable/MHC(R) Hari Om, No.189/A for ascertaining certain information relating to the references, which were pending with Record Branch, P.S. IGIA. He also enquired about the PO register, pending dossiers and other miscellaneous papers, sent to the Record Branch for taking suitable action/replies. During this period, the attitude of Head Constable Hari Om, No.189/A was atrocious and he claimed about himself to be the busiest person and stated that he cannot perform the duty. This is the general attitude of the Head Constable that whenever any duty is assigned to him every time he posed himself as the busiest person. He was told by the SHO/IGIA to behave properly and complete the job on priority but there was no change in the behaviour of the Head Constable and he asked SHO/IGIA to take any action what so ever he feels. The expression and act of Head Constable Hari Om, No.189/A amounts to gross indiscipline and insubordination.
Inspr. Dharambir Singh Joshi, SHO/IGIA brought the matter into the notice of ACP/Sub-division Palam and placed the said Head Constable under suspension with effect from 14.12.2005 after obtaining the approval of ACP/Sub-division Palam vide DD No.18-A dated 14.12.2005 P.S. IGIA. The formal orders were also issued vide this office No.18-40/HAP/IGIA(P-I) dated 3.1.2006.
The above act on the part of Head Constable Hari Om, No.189/A amounts to grave misconduct, negligence and remissness in discharge of his official duty which renders him to be dealt with departmentally under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980.
3. An enquiry was held and after examining five witnesses for the prosecution, the enquiry officer framed a charge, which was substantially the same as the summary of allegation. The Applicant did not produce any witness for his defence. The enquiry officer held the charge to be proved against the Applicant thus:
In view of the above discussion, the charge against delinquent H.C. Hari Om, No. 189/A is proved to the extent that while talking to SHO/P.S. IGIA on 14.12.2005, his attitude was atrocious.
4. The learned counsel for the Applicant in his submissions has urged that the first witness for prosecution, namely Inspector D.V. Joshi had given a report of the incident to superior authorities, which was not given to the Applicant but was also relied upon by the enquiry officer to come to the aforementioned conclusion and also by the disciplinary authority in establishing the misconduct of the Applicant. The learned counsel would point to the following paragraph in deposition of PW-1to establish that the report has been relied upon:
The entire facts were informed to ACP/Sub-division Palam and delinquent H.C. was placed under suspension after obtaining the approval of ACP/Sub-division Palam vide DD No. 18-A dated 14.12.2005.
5. The learned counsel would point out that it is mentioned in the charge also that Inspector Dharambir Singh Joshi, SHO/IGIA brought the matter into the notice of ACP/Sub-division Palam.. The learned counsel would contend that while the enquiry officer has relied on the report given by PW-1, its copy has not been given to the Applicant to his prejudice. He would further contend that the disciplinary authority has also relied on the same report. Our attention has been drawn to the order of the disciplinary authority in which in unnumbered paragraph 6, there is a mention that [T]hus, the report of Inspr. Dharambir Singh Joshi, SHO/PS-IGIA is reliable.
6. The learned counsel would further contend that in the charge, there were two allegations against the Applicant. The first charge was that his attitude and behaviour towards his superior officer, namely, Inspector Dharambir Singh Joshi was atrocious. Second part of the charge was that even on being asked that he should behave properly, there was no change in his behaviour and that he asked the SHO/IGIA to take whatever action he felt he could take against the Applicant. It is contended that the charge has been proved by the enquiry officer only to the extent that while talking to the SHO, Inspector Dharambir Singh Joshi, his attitude was atrocious. It is stated that no finding has been recorded about the second charge regarding no change in behaviour even after he was asked to behave properly. He would contend that the disciplinary authority, on the other hand, has recorded that the charge against the Applicant has been proved, whereas only a part of the charge has been proved. Thus, there has been no application of mind by the disciplinary authority.
7. The Respondents, per contra, have contested the cause of the Applicant by filing a counter affidavit.
8. We find absolutely no substance in the contentions of the learned counsel for the Applicant for reasons, which are recorded hereafter. We have already reproduced the summary of allegations against the Applicant. The charge, which was framed by the enquiry officer, is also extracted below:
I Inspr. Virender Singh (E.O) hereby charge you, Head Constable Hari Om, No.189/A (PIS No.28821411) that while posted at Police Station IGI Airport on 14.12.2005, Inspr. Dharambir Singh Joshi, SHO/IGIA called the SI (Record) and other staff including you, Head Constable Hari Om, No.189/A, MCH(R) for ascertaining certain information relating to the references, which were pending with Record Branch, P.S. IGIA. He also enquired about the PO register, pending dossiers and other miscellaneous papers, sent to the Record Branch for taking suitable action/replies. During this period, your attitude was atrocious and you claimed about yourself to be the busiest person and stated that you cannot perform the duty. This is your general attitude that whenever any duty is assigned to you every time you posed yourself as the busiest person. You were told by the SHO/IGIA to behave properly and complete the job on priority but there was no change in your behaviour and you asked SHO/IGIA to take any action what so ever he feels. Your expression and act amounts to gross indiscipline and insubordination.
Inspr. Dharambir Singh Joshi, SHO/IGIA brought the matter into the notice of ACP/Sub-division Palam and placed you, Head Constable Hari Om, No.189/A under suspension with effect from 14.12.2005 after obtaining the approval of ACP/Sub-division Palam vide DD No.18-A dated 14.12.2005 P.S. IGIA. The formal orders were also issued vide this office No.18-40/HAP/IGIA(P-I) dated 3.1.2006.
The above act on the part you, Head Constable Hari Om, No.189/A amounts to grave misconduct, negligence and remissness in the discharge of your official duty which renders you to be dealt with departmentally under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980.
9. It is clear that it cannot be said on the basis of above charge that it has two parts i.e. one part regarding the Applicants rude behaviour towards his superior officer and the second that there was no change in his behaviour in spite of being cautioned. We have no doubt that the charge overall is regarding the rude behaviour of the Applicant towards his superior officer. This has been established by the enquiry officer. There was no need for the enquiry officer also to state that there was no change in his behaviour and the Applicant asked the superior officer to take whatever action he wanted to take against the Applicant. This would only amount to rudeness and discourtesy towards superior officer, which charge has been proved. We are also unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel that the Applicant has been prejudiced because the copy of the report of Inspector Dharambir Singh Joshi, the first witness for the prosecution has not been given to him, while the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority have relied on it. The learned counsel has fairly conceded that the report was not a relied upon document in the summary of allegation. We have carefully perused the statement of PW-1 and we notice that the report has not been exhibited as a document by the witness. He has only stated that he (PW-1) had informed the ACP about the episode. There is no mention of his report in this. The Applicant has also not asked about the report in his cross-examination. In so far as the mention of the report in the disciplinary authoritys order is concerned, it is of no consequence. This would become clear from a reading of the entire paragraph in which mention of the report has been made. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below:
I have carefully gone through the findings of E.O., statements of PWs, written statement and written representation with regard to the findings of E.O. and other related record available in the DE file in detail. Though the version of Inspr. Dharambir Singh Joshi, SHO/PS-IGIA (PW-I) was not supported/ corroborated by any of the other PWs examined during the course of departmental enquiry proceedings but contention of an officer of the rank of Inspector cannot be ruled out so lightly. The perusal of statement of PW I reveals that he called SI Record and other staff including the defaulter Head Constable for ascertaining the position of officials papers pending relating to replies to be sent to senior officers, P.O. registers/pending dossiers and other miscellaneous papers. Defaulter Head Constable Hari Om, No.189/A said that he is very busy with other work and cannot perform his duty. When asked to behave properly and take up the work of priority, he said that he cannot do and stated to do what he can do. He did not mind even suspension. He (PW-I) has further added that the work in the record branch was suffering because of the callous attitude of the record staff. This fact was also mentioned in the DD No.18-A, dated 14.12.2005 which reflects undesirable attitude on the part of other staff which was posted in the Record Branch/IGIA and who are the PWs in the instant D.E. Obviously being annoyed with the adverse remarks against them in the DD entry they have favoured the defaulter Head Constable in retaliation to minimize their misconduct reported therein which was of an equivalent gravity though on the particular day of the incident, HC Hari Om, No.189/A indulged in the act of indiscipline. Thus, the report of Inspr. Dharambir Singh Joshi, SHO/PS-IGIA is reliable as he acted in professional discharge of duty and allegation of atrocious attitude on the part of defaulter Head Constable Hari Om, No.189/A stands substantiated. The defaulter Head Constable is a member of disciplined force of Delhi Police. His atrocious attitude towards his senior officers amounts to grave misconduct and indiscipline. In case he is not dealt with sternly, other subordinates are likely to follow his foot-steps, vitiating the atmosphere of discipline in the department, thereby rendering the supervisory officers helpless in performance of government duties in an effective/desired manner.
10. It is clear from the reading of this paragraph that there is no mention of any report submitted by the first witness for prosecution. We are convinced that mere mention of such a report, so fleetingly, would in no way cause prejudice to the Applicant.
11. No other contention has been urged before us by the learned counsel for the Applicant.
12. On the basis of above discussion, we find the OA to be completely bereft of merit and, therefore, dismiss the same. There will be no order as to costs.
( Meera Chhibber) ( L.K. Joshi ) Member (J) Vice Chairman (A) /dkm/