Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vikram Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 12 August, 2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi
O.A.No.384/2014
and
R.A.No.84/2014 in O.A.No.384/2014
Order Reserved on:16.07.2016
Order pronounced on 12.08.2016
Hon'ble Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, Member (A)
O.A.No.384/2014:
Shri Vikram Singh
S/o Sh. Sharwan Lal
R/o G-15/2 IIIrd Floor Malviya Nagar
Delhi. .... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police
PHQ, MSO Building
IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. Special Commissioner of Police/L & O
PHQ, MSO Building
IP Estate, New Delhi.
3. Joint Commissioner of Police
South Eastern Range
PHQ, MSO Building
IP Estate, New Delhi.
OA 384/2014 with RA 84/2014
2
4. Deputy Commissioner of Police
DE Cell (the enquiry officer)
8th Floor Police Station
Barakhamba Road
New Delhi. .... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi)
R.A.No.84/2014 in O.A.No.384/2014:
1. Commissioner of Police
PHQ, MSO Building
IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. Special Commissioner of Police/L & O
PHQ, MSO Building
IP Estate, New Delhi.
3. Joint Commissioner of Police
South Eastern Range
PHQ, MSO Building
IP Estate, New Delhi.
4. Deputy Commissioner of Police
DE Cell (the enquiry officer)
8th Floor Police Station
Barakhamba Road
New Delhi. .... Applicants
(By Advocate: Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi)
Versus
Shri Vikram Singh
S/o Sh. Sharawan Lal
R/o G-15/2 IIIrd Floor Malviya Nagar
New Delhi. .... Respondent
(By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra)
OA 384/2014 with RA 84/2014
3
ORDER
By V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J):
This OA has been filed by the applicant, an Inspector in Delhi Police, seeking quashing of the Annexures A1 to A4 whereunder the respondents have initiated a regular joint departmental inquiry against the applicant and Head Constable - Sum Dev.
2. The brief facts, as narrated by the applicant, are that while he was working as Station House Officer, Shahdra, a Builder by name Joginder Singh made a complaint on 08.08.2013 (Annexure A6) against the applicant and Sum Dev, Head Constable also working in the same Station.
3. The gist of the said complaint is that the said complainant took a Plot No.1/5798, Plot No.21, Gali No.13, Balbir Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi for construction work from its owner Satish Kanodia in October, 2012 and the building plans were got approved/passed on 31.12.2012 from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide F.No.553/B/SHM/12D/163 and accordingly the construction work had been started in January, 2013 and four stories have been constructed and finishing work was on progress. At that stage, the work was got stopped by Head Constable
- Sum Dev on 2.08.2013 by stating that the work is unauthorized. In spite of the explanation of the complainant that he got all the necessary approvals from the MCD, the Head Constable scolded him and asked the complainant to come to Police Station and to meet the SHO. On 05.08.2013, complainant went to Police Station to meet the OA 384/2014 with RA 84/2014 4 SHO but as he was not available, he handed over an application to the Reader of the SHO but the Reader refused to receive the same. Meanwhile, he received a phone call from Head Constable - Sum Dev. On 06.08.2013, again the complainant received a phone call from the applicant and as per his instructions met him at 3.00 PM at the Police Station and he said a false case will be registered against the complainant and he will be put to jail. He further told that if the complainant wants to continue the construction work, he has to pay Rs.50,000 and instructed the complainant to meet Head Constable - Sum Dev for further instructions. Though the complainant reluctant to pay the said amount, but on continuous persuasion by the Head Constable - Sum Dev and out of fear, the complainant paid Rs.30,000/- and then he assured that he will convince the SHO and asked the complainant to continue the construction work. It is also mentioned in the compliant that the complainant recorded the details of the conversation of the phone calls. Accordingly, he sought appropriate action to be taken against the applicant and the said HC - Sum Dev.
4. In pursuance of the aforesaid complaint, an FIR No.354 was registered on 07.09.2013 under Section 384 of IPC and Sections 7, 13(1)(d) of the PC Act against the applicant and Head Constable - Sum Dev.
5. In view of the aforesaid complaint and FIR, the respondents vide the impugned Annexures A1 and A2 ordered for a regular joint OA 384/2014 with RA 84/2014 5 departmental inquiry, against the applicant and the said Head Constable - Sum Dev, under the provisions of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.
6. This Tribunal by its order dated 28.02.2014 while permitting the applicant to make a representation espousing his explanation to the allegations made against him, directed the disciplinary authority to take a subjective view in the matter, and stayed the impugned proceedings dated 09.12.2013, till then. The said stay is still in operation, as the respondents have not passed any orders and that they have filed the Review Application No.84/2014 to review the stay order dated 28.02.2014.
7. Heard both sides and perused the pleadings on record.
8. Shri Ajesh Luthra, the learned counsel for the applicant, in support of the OA averments, would submit as under:
a) The crime registered against the applicant and the HC Sum Dev vide the FIR No.345 dated 07.09.2013 was thoroughly investigated and that since no incriminating evidence against the applicant is found, the chargesheet was filed only against the Head Constable - Sum Dev. No cognizance was also taken against the applicant. The Special Judge/PC Act/ACB/Delhi vide order dated 19.02.2016, categorically ordered that the applicant has not been charge sheeted and has been placed in Column 12 and the cognizance of offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) OA 384/2014 with RA 84/2014 6 PC Act and Section 384 IPC were taken against the accused Sum Dev. Accordingly, the learned counsel submits that since after investigation it was revealed that there was no incriminating evidence against the applicant, and that no cognizance is taken for the offences alleged, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed qua the applicant.
b) The Standing Orders provides for calling for explanation from the delinquent officer before initiation of the inquiry proceedings. However, in the present case the impugned orders initiating the inquiry are passed without calling for any explanation of the applicant.
9. On the other hand, Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the OA would contend as under:
i) The OA is premature. No Court or Tribunal while exercising their power of judicial review, can interfere at the stage of charge sheet or show cause notice, as the delinquent will be given an opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry.
ii) Though cognizance was not taken against the applicant in the criminal case, but his name was placed under Column No.12, so that on the basis of the evidence in the trial, if any material is available against him, he will be arrayed as accused.
iii) Standing orders are only administrative in nature and they are only directory but not mandatory. Further, once an FIR OA 384/2014 with RA 84/2014 7 has been registered, explanation before initiation of the inquiry is not required to be called for.
iv) The learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:
a) N.M.Sehrawat v. Union of India & Others, OA 3011/2011 dated 09.05.2012 of CAT, PB, New Delhi.
b) Shailender Kaur v. Lt. Governor and Others, 91 (2001) DLT 243 dated 27.04.2001 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
c) Vijay Singh v. Union of India & Others, [Civil Appeal No.7212/2005] dated 23.02.2007.
10. In N.M.Shehrawat (supra) the issue was whether the criminal and departmental proceedings in respect of same set of facts can be proceeded simultaneously against the delinquent officer. Since no such issue is raised in the present OA, the said decision has no application.
11. In Shailender Kaur (supra), an order passed under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 in directing the petitioner therein to remove herself from the limits of National Capital Territory of Delhi for a period of two years and in imposing certain other conditions for her entry into Delhi for attending Court cases was questioned. Hence, this case also has no application to the present OA.
12. In Vijay Singh (supra), the principal contention revolves around violation of Rule 15(2) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) OA 384/2014 with RA 84/2014 8 Rules, 1980, which according to the appellant mandates that in a case in which a preliminary inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, departmental inquiry shall be ordered after obtaining prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police concerned as to whether a criminal case should be registered and investigated or a departmental inquiry should be held. Even, the facts in this case are also different from that of the present OA.
13. As per the direction of this Tribunal, the learned counsel for the applicant filed a true translation of the final report filed in FIR No.345, and the relevant Paragraphs of the same read as under:
"Statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC recorded on dated 25.02.2014 the pendrive given by the complainant deposited at PS Shahdara and on dt.27.2.2014, the case exhibits through Road Certificate by CFSL No.2014/E/0305 and 2014/P/0307 CFSL Lodhi Road in the sealed condition with CFSL Form deposited.
During investigation, Inspr. Vikram Singh Meena was interrogated, who during the investigation told that he took legal action against Joginder Singh under the Environment Act and regarding the building gave information to MCD. Due to this reason the complainant has made allegation/charge against him, which during the investigation Inspr. Vikram Singh Meena told that during the incident day he has gone to Hon'ble Delhi High Court and he had not asked HC Sumdev to take money from anyone, any act committed by H.C.Sumdev has done in his individual capacity and he did not take money from Sumdev, which during investigation he told that complainant Joginder Singh has planned a conspiracy to implicate him. He further told that complainant is involved in 4 cases. On dated 20.3.2015 result of CFSL obtained and on obtaining sealed Packets of CFSL, deposited at PS Shahdara, and the expert opinion regarding CFSL result in voice sample and photo sample is as follows: "Hence the voice marked exhibits Q-1(2)(s) and Q-2(1)(s) are the probable voide of the person (HC Sumdev) whose specimen voice is marked as Exhibit S-1(s). The CFSL report No.CFSL-2014/E-0305 of the photo division is as follow:
Ëxhibit No.5 (Photo samples of Sumdev and Joginder Singh) are identical/tallies/matches with snapshot taken from the Exhibit No.1 (watch camera video) which in the case during investigation against HC Sumdev chargesheet came physical/scientific and oral evidence, but from him no recovery of bribe money, which the complainant alleged during investigation against Inspr. Vikaram Singh Meena and H.C. Sumdev ink saaf except no other evidence is as such that on the basis of which chargesheet can be prepared against him.OA 384/2014 with RA 84/2014 9
The complainant in his transcription admitted that when he has gone to meet SHO, the SHO has not said anything to him and gave cold drink and sent him.
The complainant had no audio/video recordings against Inspr. Vikram Singh Meena, the then SHO Shahdra as such for chargesheeting Inspr. Vikram Singh Meena, there is no adequate evidence. As such no chargesheet is prepared against Inspr. Vikram Singh Meena. But against HC Sumdev adequate evidence is there as such challan has been issued and against him. Prosecution sanction u/s 19 POC Act obtained from DCP/North East Sahab. As such against HC Sumdev Challan has been prepared as such by way of summons and the accused Sumdev through Notice be called to be present."
14. It is true that in normal circumstances this Tribunal is reluctant to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings at the stage of issuance of charge memorandum or initiation of departmental inquiry. It is so, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the delinquent officer will get an opportunity to defend himself in the departmental inquiry. But in the present case, admittedly, as per the investigation conducted by the respondents themselves against the applicant and the Head Constable - Sum Dev, no incriminating evidence was found against the applicant and accordingly a final report has been filed and that the concerned criminal Court has not taken cognizance of any offence against the applicant and that his name is shown under Column No.12. It is not in dispute that the impugned order of initiation of inquiry was issued solely on the basis of the complaint made against the applicant and Head Constable - Sum Dev, and that the said complaint was found to be baseless, qua the applicant, in the investigation conducted by the respondents themselves. Hence, continuation of departmental proceedings against the applicant is unwarranted and will put the applicant into OA 384/2014 with RA 84/2014 10 unnecessary sufferance, since the allegations were found to be untrue, as per the final report accepted by the criminal Court itself.
15. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the OA is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed, qua the applicant. Accordingly, the RA No.84/2014 filed against the interim order is dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha) (V. Ajay Kumar)
Member (A) Member (J)
/nsnrvak/