Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Nav Rattan (D-I/337) vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 19 May, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.2093/2007 New Delhi, this the 19th day of May, 2009 Honble Mr. Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Nav Rattan (D-I/337) S/o Late Shri Hari Chand R/o Quarter No.1048, Sector 8, R. K. Puram, Delhi-110 0022. Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri Sachin Chauhan) versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi Through its Chief Secretary Players Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters, I. P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. Joint Commissioner of Police (Traffic) Police Headquarters I. P. Estate New Delhi. 4. Joint CP Vigilance Police Headquarters I. P. Estate New Delhi. 5. Special C. P./Vigilance Police Headquarters I. P. Estate New Delhi. . Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Jyoti Singh) : O R D E R (ORAL) : Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman :
Consequent to departmental inquiry for major punishment, the applicant has been censured by Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 25.11.2005. Appeal against the same has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.07.2007. There is no need to give facts in detail in view of limited controversy raised at this stage. We may, however, mention that the Inquiry Officer after recording evidence, came to the conclusion that charges framed against the applicant are not substantiated. The Disciplinary Authority, however, not agreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer recorded Disagreement note dated 25.11.2005. With a view to appreciate the controversy raised at this stage, we may reproduce the relevant para of the Disagreement Note, which reads as follows :-
I have gone through the findings submitted by DCP/D.E. Cell, (Copy enclosed) the statements of PWs and other material on file. I disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer holding that the charges framed against Inspector Nav Rattan, D-I/337, SI Hardeep Singh, D/1881 and ASI Veer Singh, 2253/T are not proved due to the following reasons:-
The Enquiry Officer held that only one PW Inspector Raj Singh of Vigilance Branch has supported the prosecution version, but failed to give any other specific evidence against the defaulters. The Enquiry Officer held that no other PW supported the version of PW-1 and the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the guilt of defaulters.
PW-1, Inspector Raj Singh of Vigilance Branch was deputed from Vigilance Branch to enquire into the matter, after it appeared in newspaper regarding the illegal bus operation. The statement of PW-1 is evident that on the day of checking, there were 4/5 buses bearing registration number of Punjab State which left one by one after picking up the passengers near Ritz Cinema. He even checked the documents and found that they were in possession of All India Tourist Permit. He also noticed certain touts bringing passengers from inside the ISBT and boarding them in these buses. Thus, these buses were plying in contravention of permit conditions issued to them and were not supposed to pick up individual passengers. These buses were plying in violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. There is no need of any other PW supporting the deposition of PW-1, who is a responsible & Independent officer of Vigilance Branch. His statement is worth full reliance.
Infact, Enquiry Officer has himself concluded that Traffic Police had been found prosecuting/Impounding buses from time to time, but the efforts were not so deterrent to stop them from plying in contravention of permit conditions. Thus, I am of the considered view that Inspr. Nav Rattan, No.D-I/337, SI Hardeep Singh, D/1881 and ASI Veer Singh, 2253/T failed in curbing the operation of unauthorized buses, belonging to other states, plying in contravention of permit conditions from the area around Kashmeri Gate in Civil Lines Circle.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant would contend that from the Disagreement Note reproduced above, it appears that the Disciplinary Authority had already made up his mind to hold the applicant guilty and impose the proposed punishment.
3. In the circumstances mentioned above, the show cause notice given to the applicant would have no meaning as the Disciplinary Authority has already made up his mind to punish the applicant. We find considerable merit in the argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant. The matter seems to be covered by number of decisions, referred to by the counsel for applicant, in OA No.1266/2004 decided on 26.07.2006 in the matter of Constable Raj Kumar vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors., OA No.3047/2004 decided on 20.04.2006 in the matter of SI Om Singh vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. and CWP No.2665/2002 decided by the Honble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Commissioner of Police vs. Constable Pramod Kumar & Anr..
4. For the reasons recorded above, the Original Application is partly allowed. Disagreement Note dated 25.11.2005, order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 12.06.2006 and Appellate Authority order dated 12.02.2007 are hereby quashed and set aside. It is not disputed that because of these orders the applicants name was kept in the Secret List, which too has been challenged in this OA. The same also stands set aside. Respondents, however, will be at liberty to proceed departmentally against the applicant in accordance with law from the stage of Inquiry Report.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (V. K. Bali)
Member (A) Chairman
/pj/