Delhi District Court
Unknown vs Vide Memo No.3852/F.7/18/Vig/Dwk ... on 4 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF DHEERAJ MOR: ACJcumCCJcumARC
(SOUTHWEST): DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI.
Fact Finding Enquiry no.01/18
F. No. F.07/18/ VIG/DWK
DO: Shri Bhagwan, Process Server
04.09.18
Fact Finding Enquiry Report
1.Vide memo no.3852/F.7/18/VIG/DWK dated 05.05.2018 of the office of District & Sessions Judge (SW), Dwarka, New Delhi, duly signed by Sh. Vijay Kumar Dahiya, Ld. Officer Incharge, Vigilance Branch, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, the undersigned was directed to conduct fact finding enquiry against Sh.Shri Bhagwan, Process Server, posted in Nazarat Branch, District Court Dwarka, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as delinquent, in short) on a complaint of Sh. Vijender Singh dated 28.03.2018.
2. Briefly stated, allegations against the delinquent are that on 12.01.2018, summons in a civil suit number 364/2017 pending before the court of Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, Ld. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kosli, Haryana, were handed over to him in the Nazarat branch vide register number 89 dated 12.01.2018 for its service upon the complainant Sh. Vijender Singh S/o late Sh. Kanwar Singh R/o M1, PhaseIV, Prem Page no.1 of 8 F. No. F.07/18/ VIG/DWK DO: Sh. Shri Bhagwan Process Server Nagar, Najafgarh, New Delhi. It is alleged that the delinquent in conspiracy with one Pramjeet gave a false report on the said summons, wherein he had mentioned that he met a lady in the house of the complainant, who claimed herself to be the wife of the complainant and after talking with the complainant on phone, she refused to accept the court summons. It is alleged that the delinquent neither went to the house of the complainant nor he met his wife and therefore, the report on the said summons is false, which has been given in connivance with said Sh. Paramjeet Singh for causing wrongful loss to the complainant. It is further alleged that the said Paramjeet knows the wife of the complainant and therefore, there was no possibility of her mistaken identity. The complainant has alleged that on account of the said false report, he suffered hardships in the said Civil suit. Pertinently, the domain of the present fact finding inquiry is limited only to the allegations of the complainant regarding false report of the delinquent on the said summons.
3. The notice of this inquiry was issued to both the complainant and the delinquent. The delinquent filed a reply to the said complaint and denied the allegations of the complainant. He has asserted that his report on the said summons is correct.
4. The complainant examined five witnesses. IW1 Sh. Ishwar Singh and IW2 Sh. Tara Chand are the Advocates, they Page no.2 of 8 F. No. F.07/18/ VIG/DWK DO: Sh. Shri Bhagwan Process Server have testified that the complainant, who is an Advocate, was in Dwarka Courts Complex from 10:00 am to 3:00 p.m on 12.01.2018. IW3 Sh. Pankaj Sharma, Assistant Nodal Officer, Reliance, has placed on record CAF, Call detail record and cell ID chart Ex.IW3/A of the mobile of the complainant to show that the complainant was in Dwarka Court Complex on the aforesaid date and time. IW4 Smt. Satya Yadav is the wife of the complainant and she has testified that on 12.01.2018, her right leg was plastered and she was on red rest. She has denied to have seen delinquent ever before and she has deposed that she is seeing him for the first time in the court. She has placed on record her medical documents and the same are mark A (colly.). IW5 complainant Vijender Singh has tendered his affidavit Ex.IW5/A in his examination and he has reiterated the contents of his complaint on oath. In his cross examination, he admitted that he visited Nazarat branch of Dwarka Courts on 15.01.2018 as he was told by his professional colleagues and his family members that Paramjeet has filed a case against him, who had gone to Delhi on 12.01.2018. He has testified that on 15.01.2018, 16.01.2018 & 17.01.2018, he enquired from the delinquent employee as to what report, he has given on the summons. He has deposed that the delinquent employee told him that he has given a report that he was not found available at his house and Page no.3 of 8 F. No. F.07/18/ VIG/DWK DO: Sh. Shri Bhagwan Process Server he has handed over the said report to the Paramjeet, who accompanied him to his place for its service. He has testified that he did not appear in the said court on the next date of hearing i.e 17.01.2018.
5. The delinquent employee was examined and all the allegations were put to him for seeking his explanation. He has maintained that the report on the said summons is correct. He has stated that he alongwith Paramjeet Singh went to the house of the complainant on 12.01.18 at about 3:10 p.m. However, Paramjeet Singh did not enter the house. He has stated that he saw a lady sitting on a cot in the courtyard of the said house and on inquiry, she told him that she is wife of the complainant. He has stated that he did not ask for her identity proof. He has further stated that Param Singh took him to the house of the complainant. He has explained the location of the house of the complainant. He sought an opportunity to lead evidence in his defence. Accordingly, he examined 05 witnesses. DW1 Sh. G.K.Kohli, District Nazir, Nazarat branch, Dwarka Courts was examined on 10.08.2018 and he has deposed that abut 78 months back, complainant came to Nazarat branch and enquired about the summons from Kosli, Haryana. He has deposed that Sh.Ajay, Naib Nazir checked the details from computer and informed that the said summons were marked to the delinquent, Page no.4 of 8 F. No. F.07/18/ VIG/DWK DO: Sh. Shri Bhagwan Process Server one or two days prior to the said date for its service. DW2 Sh. Ajay Kumar, Naib Nazir corroborated the testimony of DW1. In his cross examination, the certified copy of the said summons dated 04.01.2008 alongwith its report is put to him and the same is Ex. DW2/C. DW3 is Smt. Sunita, SJA, Nazarat Branch, Dwarka Courts has testified that complainant came to her office about 56 months back at about 1:15 p.m and he enquired as to who is Shri Bhagwan. Thereafter, she guided him to Sh.G.K.Kohli, District Nazir. DW4 Sh. Sushil Yadav is a Peon in Nazarat Branch, Dwarka Courts and he has corroborated the version of Smt. Sunita. DW5 Sh. Ram Saran, Process Server has testified that about 56 months back, at about 1:30 p.m2:30 p.m on the instructions of Sh. G.K.Kohli, he telephoncially called Shri Bhagwan and told him that an Advocate has come to Nazarat branch for inquiry about dasti summons that was entrusted to him for his service.
6. The complainant and delinquent were heard. The entire record is perused.
7. On the basis of the fact finding enquiry including testimony of the witnesses and the relevant record, my prima facie findings are as under:
a). The summons Ex. DW2/C were entrusted to the delinquent for its service upon the complainant on 12.01.2018;
Page no.5 of 8 F. No. F.07/18/ VIG/DWK
DO: Sh. Shri Bhagwan Process Server
b). The delinquent gave a report dated 12.01.2018 on
the said summons stating that he met a lady in the house of the complainant, who claimed herself to be the wife of the complainant and after talking on mobile phone with some one, she refused to accept the summons ;
c). The complainant visited the Nazarat branch, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi on 15.01.2018 and he enquired from DW1 Sh G.K.Kohli, District Nazir, Incharge, Nazarat Branch, about the summons from Kosli, Haryana. Thus, it is evident that the complainant was aware about the issuance of the said summons on the said date. He has explained the knowledge about the said summons stating that his professional colleagues and family members (from his village) told him that Paramjeet has filed a case against him and he went to Delhi on 12.01.2018. The complainant has failed to specify the identity of the said persons. He has even failed to examine any of the said persons. It is beyond reasonable comprehension that a person, even if he is an Advocate, would approach the Nazarat branch of the court by just hearing the vague information regarding institution of a case against him. Hence, the said explanation is not convincing and fails to inspire confidence. In these circumstances, it appears that the complainant had a concrete information that an effort was made by the Process serving agency to effect service of Page no.6 of 8 F. No. F.07/18/ VIG/DWK DO: Sh. Shri Bhagwan Process Server summons upon him and the said information could not have been with him unless the Process Server had actually visited his house for service of summons upon him. Strangely and significantly, the complainant did not appear in the concerned court on the date fixed i.e 17.01.2018 despite receipt of its knowledge prior to the said date;
d). The complainant has placed on record the medical document of his wife IW4 Smt. Satya Yadav and the said documents are marked as Mark A (colly.). The said documents merely reflect that she had a fracture in her right foot on 25.11.2017 and thereafter, it was casted/plastered on 26.11.2017. However, none of the said documents reflect whether the said plaster was intact or not on 12.01.2018;
e). The delinquent was negligent in not asking for identity proof of the wife of the complainant. Besides, as per order 5 rule 17 CPC, on refusal, the delinquent was under the statutory obligation to affix the copy of the summons outside the house of the defendant/ complainant. However, the delinquent failed to comply the said provisions of law. Therefore, it is apparent that the delinquent did not perform his duties, as per law. However, there is no sufficient evidence on record to hold that the report on the said summons is false or there was any malice on the part of the delinquent. Before parting, though it is out of the domain of Page no.7 of 8 F. No. F.07/18/ VIG/DWK DO: Sh. Shri Bhagwan Process Server these proceedings, it is observed that in order to avoid future controversies, the process servers be directed to take the photographs of the proceedings of the service of summons and they may be provided necessary infrastructure in that regard. It is further suggested that proper and regular training be imparted to the Process Servers for educating them about the law concerning their duties and for improving their efficiency.
8. Accordingly, the fact finding enquiry of the delinquent is concluded.
9. This report alongwith the fact finding documents, received from Sh. V.K.Dahiya, Ld. Officer Incharge, Vigilance Branch (SW), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, be sent to him, in a sealed cover, for necessary action and the remaining file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Dheeraj Mor)
today i.e on 04.09.18 ACJ/CCJ/ARC:South West District
Digitally signed by Dwarka Courts: New Delhi.
DHEERAJ DHEERAJ MOR
MOR Date: 2018.09.07
15:53:07 +0530
Page no.8 of 8 F. No. F.07/18/ VIG/DWK
DO: Sh. Shri Bhagwan Process Server
Fact Finding Enquiry no.01/18
F. No. F.07/18/ VIG/DWK
DO: Shri Bhagwan, Process Server
04.09.18
Present: Complaint in person.
Delinquent employee in person.
Heard. Case file is perused.
Vide separate order announced in the open court, the fact finding enquiry is concluded. The said order/ report alongwith the fact finding documents, received from Sh. V.K.Dahiya, Ld. Officer Incharge, Vigilance Branch (SW), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, be sent to him, in a sealed cover, for necessary action.
Remaining file be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
(Dheeraj Mor)
ACJCCJARC (SW)
Dwarka Courts: 04.09.18
Page no.9 of 8 F. No. F.07/18/ VIG/DWK
DO: Sh. Shri Bhagwan Process Server
Page no.10 of 8 F. No. F.07/18/ VIG/DWK
DO: Sh. Shri Bhagwan Process Server