Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Inspector Asha Badola No.D/2622 vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 16 May, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.3852 of 2010 This the 16th day of May, 2011 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE SHRI L. K. JOSHI, VICE-CHAIRMAN (A) Inspector Asha Badola No.D/2622, R/o Flat No.4C, 111 Bn., Police Line, Vikas Puri, Delhi presently posted at PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station. Applicant (By Ms. Jasvinder Kaur, Advocate ) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Commissioner of Police, Police Hqrs., IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Joint Commissioner of Police Crime (Women Cell), Nanak Pura, New Delhi. Respondents ( By ASI Qyam Ali, Deptt. Representative ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Asha Badola, an Inspector in Delhi Police, the applicant herein, has been censured by the disciplinary authority and the appeal filed by her against the said order has since been dismissed. While challenging the orders aforesaid, learned counsel representing the applicant would contend that it is not because of proof of the allegations subject matter of censure that the applicant may have been punished; she, on the other hand, has been punished because of an overall impression gathered by the senior officers about her overall work and conduct. Is that so? The facts may speak.
2. A show cause notice came to be issued to the applicant on 5.11.2008 on the allegations that a criminal case on the complaint of one Ms. Ashima Manocha was registered vide FIR No.13/2008 dated 7.5.2008 u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC at PS Crime (Women) Cell, Nanak Pura, New Delhi, when reconciliation proceedings failed. Investigation of the case aforesaid was entrusted to the applicant. It was alleged that while perusing the case file of the investigation, it came to be noticed that even after four months of registration of the case, only one case diary dated 8.5.2008 had been written/recorded by the applicant, investigating officer of the case, and that too was with regard to receipt of police missal from duty officer, after registration of the case. This, according to the department, would suggest that no investigation as such had been conducted while it was expected from the investigating officer to complete the investigation within 60-90 days, as per instructions issued from time to time, and further that on scrutiny of the case file, it had emerged that no paper/document had been collected till issuance of the show cause notice, and that except the complaint and copy of FIR, the only available document, i.e., list of stridhan, too had been detached from the file, and the entire conduct and handling of investigation would be indicative of casual attitude towards investigation on the part of the applicant.
3. The applicant responded to the show cause notice, and in the reply filed by her, stated that on receipt of the case file, the complainant was asked to join the investigation. Father of the complainant informed through a letter that his daughter would be busy in her office for 4-5 days and requested that notice to be served to the respondents may be postponed by 4-5 days. He verbally informed that both parties were trying to settle the matter amicably and that they would be approaching the Honble High Court for quashing of the FIR. The applicant also stated that on 19.5.2008, the complainant informed through letter dated 14.5.2008 that both parties had amicably settled the matter and compromised, and requested that no further action may be taken in the case. On 16.9.2008, the High Court quashed and disposed of the concerned FIR. The applicant also stated that the progress of the case was incorporated in the respective case diaries, date-wise completed, but the same could not be placed in the case file and left on her desk due to preoccupation in other matters. She added that after registration of the case, the parties made mutual settlement and compromise, and, therefore, no investigation was required to be done, and that the investigating agency was informed about the settlement and compromise.
4. Joint Commissioner of Police, Crime (Women) Cell, Delhi, the disciplinary authority of the applicant, after recording the contents of the notice and her reply, observed as follows:
I have carefully gone through the reply submitted by W/Inspr. Asha Sharma, No.D/2622. Having perused the case and guard files related to investigation of the case, it can be safely said that the reply submitted by W/Inspr. Asha Sharma, No.D/2622 is nothing but a bundle of lies and contains lame excuses to cover up inefficiency and lapses. It, further, reflects adversely on lack of moral courage on the part of the W/Inspr. to admit lapses and negligence committed by her during the course of investigation. Moreover, this is not the first instance when her such misconduct or lack of interest in official duties has been brought to the notice of the undersigned. Having gone through the reply, case file and has pointed out the lapses/lacunas and inaction in the instant matter, I find no merit in submission of W/Inspr. Asha Sharma, No.D/2622. Not only she has failed to discharge her assigned duties, though very light in comparison to her other colleagues due to her inefficiency and her poor public dealing, but also acted in a manner highly unbecoming of an officer of the rank of Inspector, that too in a disciplined force. Besides, in her efforts to cover up her lapses, she has advanced lame excuses and tried to create evidence by writing case diaries in back dates including submission and forwarding of the Guard File through ACP (emphasis supplied).
As such she definitely deserves an exemplary punishment. But, given the fact that the FIR in the instant case has been quashed by the Honble High Court and her prolonged presence in the unit on account of departmental enquiry will be detrimental to the congenial functioning of the Cell, I am inclined to close the matter, without dragging it any further, by Censuring her conduct on account of misdemeanor and acts of misconduct by W/Inspr. Asha Sharma, No.D/2622 (emphasis supplied). The appellate authority while giving the backdrop of the case and mentioning the points raised by the applicant in her appeal, while confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority, observed as follows:
I have carefully considered the appeal in the light of facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record. The appellant was heard in O.R. on 3.8.2009. At the time of hearing the appellant had stated that she did not proceed the investigation as the party concerned informed her in writing that they are trying to compromise. This was ultimately effected and the Honble High Court quashed subsequently the proceedings. Therefore, she was asked to submit her statement along with the appropriate documents in her defence, if any. Accordingly, she has submitted her statement along with documents on 19.2.2010. After careful consideration I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appellant has been awarded the punishment of censure for her casual approach and lackadaisical attitude in the investigation. Due procedure has been followed by the punishing authority in awarding the punishment. The appeal, therefore, is rejected.
5. Having heard the arguments in the matter, we are of the view that the disciplinary authority has not at all taken into consideration the explanation furnished by the applicant, and yet held that the same was nothing but a bundle of lies and contained lame excuses to cover up inefficiency and lapses on her part. The explanation furnished by the applicant was that she was informed both in writing and verbally that the parties were negotiating a compromise. Earlier, she was told not to proceed in the matter and call the respondents for four-five days as the victim was busy in her office. Thereafter she was told verbally and in writing that the parties were trying to settle the matter amicably and that they would be approaching the High Court for quashing the FIR. The disciplinary authority has not even mentioned on the explanation furnished by the applicant, and yet observed that the reply was a bundle of lies. In fact, it is proved on records that the applicant had stated truth, which was proved to the hilt. The order by the disciplinary authority came to be passed on 30.12.2008. The FIR had since already been quashed on 16.9.2008. The applicant has placed on records the orders passed by the High Court in WP (Crl.) No.1235/2008 in the matter of Ajit Pratap Singh & others v State & another. Perusal of the order would show that Ajit Pratap Singh was the husband of the victim. The other petitioners were his parents and sisters. A compromise had been arrived at between the parties, and it would appear that a petition for dissolving the marriage was also filed under Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. All claims of the wife had been settled for a sum of Rs.13,00,000/-, out of which Rs.3,25,000/- were given at the time of entering into settlement, Rs.3,25,000/- at the time of first motion under Section 13-B(1), Rs.3,25,000/- at the time of second motion and the balance amount of Rs.3,25,000/- on 8.9.2008. Since the parties had settled all their disputes, the FIR was quashed vide order dated 16.9.2008. The order passed by the High Court would also show that the marriage had since already been dissolved vide a decree of divorce dated 5.7.2008. It may be recalled that the show cause notice to the applicant was given on 5.11.2008, by which time not only the decree of divorce had already been passed, but the FIR had also been quashed. Despite these stark facts, overwhelmingly proved on records of the case, the notice would start by saying that the FIR was registered when reconciliation proceedings failed. In our view, the very issuance of the show cause notice in this case was not based on correct facts. Be that as it may, once the applicant had brought to the notice of the department the patent facts, which, if not known earlier, and, in any case, became known on the reply of the applicant, the notice ought to have been withdrawn or cancelled, and yet the applicant has been censured for not conducting investigation in the case. There was absolutely no need to conduct investigation when parties had shown willingness to compromise and had in fact compromised, and when the FIR itself had been quashed. We do find sufficient merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel representing the applicant that the disciplinary authority had confirmed the notice only because of his impression as regards the overall work and conduct of the applicant. In the order passed by the disciplinary authority, it has been mentioned that it was not the first instance when the misconduct or lack of interest in official duties on the part of the applicant had been brought to his notice. It has also been mentioned that not only that the applicant had failed to discharged her assigned duties, even though very light in comparison to her other colleagues due to her inefficiency and her poor public dealing, but she had also acted in a manner unbecoming of an officer of the rank of Inspector, that too in a disciplined force. These observations, which are not related to the allegations in question, do tend to show that the disciplinary authority was not having an overall good impression about the applicant, and that seems to have influenced his mind while confirming the show cause notice on the allegations, which, in our view, were absolutely incorrect. In fact, the very issuance of the notice was wrong as it proceeded on the premise that the FIR came to be registered when the reconciliation proceedings failed. In fact, the reconciliation proceedings started only after registration of the FIR. The appellate authority too would not refer to the reply filed by the applicant. It has referred to the grounds of appeal but would not deal with even one of them in the order passed by it.
6. Finding sufficient merit in this Original Application, we allow the same. Orders dated 30.12.2008 and 16.4.2010 passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities respectively are quashed and set aside. The applicant will be entitled to all consequential reliefs that may flow to her under rules in consequence of setting aside of the impugned orders. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
( L. K. Joshi ) ( V. K. Bali ) Vice-Chairman (A) Chairman /as/