Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Inspector Desh Bandhu No.D-I/1052 vs Union Of India Through on 20 July, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.3082 of 2010 This the 20th day of July, 2011 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Inspector Desh Bandhu No.D-I/1052 S/o Udai Ram, R/o 37-A, Pocket A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-95. Applicant ( By Shri R. K. Jain, Advocate ) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Commissioner of Police Police Headquarter, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 4. Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi District, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Respondents ( By Mrs. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Desh Bandhu, an Inspector in Delhi Police, the applicant herein, sequel to a departmental enquiry against him and others, has been visited with the penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect vide order dated 26.3.2008 passed by the disciplinary authority. The applicant carried an appeal against the order aforesaid, but before the same could be decided, vide order dated 29.5.2008 his name has been brought on the secret list because of the punishment inflicted upon him vide order aforesaid. Representation against the same was rejected on 18.7.2008 before the appeal could be decided. The appeal of the applicant against the main order referred to above passed by the disciplinary authority was dismissed on 15.5.2009. These are the orders which have been challenged by the applicant in this Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The enquiry officer, after recording the evidence as per procedure prescribed in the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 framed joint as also individual charges against the delinquents. The joint charge framed against the applicant who was at the relevant time SHO/Shakarpur, ASI Bhoop Singh and HC Brahamjeet Singh reads as follows:
I, M.R. Gothwal, Deputy Commissioner of Police, D.E. Cell, Delhi, hereby charge you Inspr. Desh Bandhu No.D-I/1052 (the then SHO P.S. Shakarpur), ASI Bhoop Singh No.432/E (now 907/ND) and HC Brahamjeet Singh No.95/E (now 1606/ND that while posted in P.S. Shakarpur, an anonymous complaint was received in P.G. Cell East District from C.Ps Post Box No. 171 dated 19.04.2003 regarding grabbing of plot No.11/375, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Enquiry of the said complaint revealed that the matter related to House No.10/355 Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar and not to House No.11/375. One Sh. Charan Sewak Singh S/o late Sh. Lok Ram who is the actual owner of Plot No.10/355, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi was missing since January 2002. A missing report in this regard was lodged vide D.D. No.20-A dated 20.04.202 at P.S. shakarpur by his relative Ram Gopal S/o Devi Dayal. The so-called relatives of missing Sh. Charan Sewak Singh namely Ram Gopal and his father Devi Dayal got opened the locks of House No.10/355, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi with the connivance of local police as alleged by the persons of the same locality namely (1) Tarsem Lal S/o Sh. Bhutu Ram r/o 11/402, Gali No.11, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi; (2) Tatbir Singh S/o Bhagat Singh r/o 10/375 Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi and (3) Harbhajan Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh r/o 11/403, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi Ram Gopal And Devi Dayal hatched conspiracy and prepared 15 years old will and sold the plot belonging to missing Ch. Charan Sewak Singh illegally. On the said plot the construction was started by Naseem and Associates. Sh. Charan Sewak Singhs disappearance raises suspicion that he had been kidnapped/abducted. His so-called relatives committed criminal trespass in his property by occupying it and managed to sell the same with forged documents. It all happened due to inappropriate action by the local police. The brief charge against each of you is as under:- The individual charge framed against the applicant, however, reads as follows:
You, Inspr. Desh Bandbu No.D-I/1052 (the then SHO/Shakarpur from 02.11.2000 to 10.11.2002) failed to check, supervise and register a case on D.D. No.20-A dated 20.04.2002 while an old man aged about 65 years was missing. A case vide FIR No.45/04 dated 21.01.2004 u/s 365/451/ 420/468/471/12-B IPC was later registered at P.S. Shakarpur on vigilance enquiry and the case was investigated by Inspr. Ravinder Kumar, the then Addl. SHO/P.S. Shakarpur. In the present case, we are not concerned with the individual charges framed against other delinquents named above. While dealing with the case of the applicant, the enquiry officer clearly held that the applicant could not be held responsible for not lodging FIR on the missing person report. The findings recorded in that regard by the enquiry officer read as follows:
The defaulter Inspr. Desh Bandhu No.D-I/1052 has submitted along with his written defence statement one copy of missing form which is sent to Missing Persons Squad etc. sent by the police station on 22.4.2002. Another copy of WTM dt. 20.4.2002 which is sent to SSPs/DCPs regarding missing and search of the Ram Sewak Singh and 3 statements of Mrs. Surender Kaur W/o Tarsem Singh, R/o 11402 Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi dt. 20.4.2002, statement of Mrs. Surender Kaur W/o Harbhajan Singh, resident of the same locality and statement of Balbir Singh, S/o Bhagat Singh R/o 41/375, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi dt. 26.4.2002 recorded by HC Brahamjeet Singh, IO of the missing DD entry. Though these statements/enclosures have not been exhibitd during the course of DE proceedings but it is presumed that these are correct and this action was taken by the IO defaulter HC Brahamjeet Singh and by Shakarpur Police. The statements only reveal and confirm that Gopal @ Ram Gopal used to visit with the owner of the plot Charan Sewak Singh whose missing entry was lodged by Ram Gopal himself and they were related to each other. The question whether there was sufficient material or cause which could have made the delinquents to lodge an FIR on the basis of missing report lodged on 20.4.202 is very crucial and relevant. As per the fact and circumstances, the missing person was 65 years old, a retired Railway servant, living alone at the given plot owned/possessed by him who was reported to be missing since January 2002 and the missing report was lodged in April 202. There was hardly any suspicion/doubt of any sort which could have made the local police to suspect the foul play at that stage as no such fact came to their knowledge at the time of lodging of the missing report as well at the later stage till the anonymous compliant was enquired by the PG Cell, East Distt. As such, they cannot be held responsible for not lodging the FIR on the missing facts. While, however, holding the applicant guilty for not taking such steps as should have been taken in the case of missing person, the enquiry officer observed as follows:
However, the action which is required after lodging the missing report are not adequate as revealed during the course of enquiry, except sending WTM, informing the Missing Person Squad/PCR and recording the three statements of the neighbours, no further action to trace the missing person appears to have been done or any such action was exhibited or evidence produced by the defaulters. Further action which was required to be taken i.e, verification/identification of unidentified dead bodies found in and around Delhi, publication of photographs in the newspapers, display of photograph in the T.V., circulation of pamphlet/hue & cry notices, publication in CRO gazette or other similar efforts which were required to be made by the delinquent HC are not produced during the course of enquiry. As such, he is certainly liable and the allegations in the charge to that extent are proved that sufficient action for tracing the missing person have not been taken by him.
Delinquent Inspector Desh Bandhu who was SHO during this particular time is also responsible for not supervising the duties of delinquent HC Brahmjeet Singh effectively and properly. It is also correct that delinquent HC did not hand over the papers of the missing DD entry on his transfer in February 2003 which is also a matter of record and proved in the DE proceedings. However, delinquent Inspector was transferred in November 2002, as such, he is not responsible for this particular aspect of negligency on the part of delinquent HC Brahamjeet Singh. The conclusion drawn by the enquiry officer is as follows:
In conclusion I sum up that there is no evidence for conspiracy on the part of the delinquents in the performance of their duties so far as the forgery of will and other documents, sale of disputed plot, possession of the disputed plot on the part of the relatives (accused) of the missing person, is concerned. However, the acts of omission and commission pertain to routine negligency which are normally caused in the handling of the missing persons cases. At the initial level, there were no such facts before them which could have led them to appreciate the gravity and conspiracy on the part of the accused persons. The acts of accused persons are individual in nature and they are solely responsible for their criminal acts and delinquents have nothing to do with that.
2. Learned counsel representing the applicant would contend that the impugned orders cannot sustain as non-registration of FIR, which was the only charge against the applicant has been held as not proved, and that the applicant has been found guilty of not taking action as required with regard to missing persons, which was not the subject matter of charge. The learned counsel further contends that if this Tribunal may, however, find that the charge covers non taking of the required steps in the case of missing person, then the explanation furnished by the applicant in that regard has not been considered at all. Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned counsel representing the respondents would, however, contend that the charge contains the allegation as regards non taking of such steps which were required to be taken, even though not specifically mentioned, and that the words check and supervision mentioned in the charge individually framed against the applicant would cover the allegations subject matter of finding against the applicant by the enquiry officer. It is urged that the applicant was conscious of the same and furnished his explanation, even though it is a different matter that the same was not properly taken into consideration by the concerned authorities.
3. We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. Whereas, we may not accept the contention raised by the learned counsel representing the applicant that non taking of such steps as may be required to be taken in the case of missing persons was not the subject matter of charge, the alternative contention of the learned counsel that the explanation furnished by the applicant was not considered by any of the authorities needs to be accepted. The words check and supervision, in our view, would certainly mean that the applicant was to take some steps as may be required to be taken when report of a missing person is lodged. The applicant was quite conscious of this, as that is why in his defence statement he referred to the action that he had taken when DD No.20-A dated 20.4.2002 was recorded at PS Shakarpur. The applicant in the statement aforesaid mentioned that on lodging of the missing report, the PCR was informed and T.P. message was given to all concerned, and that it would be incorrect to mention that he had failed to check, supervise and register a case on the DD entry aforesaid. It is also stated that the applicant had taken various steps in that regard. It has also been mentioned in the OA filed by the applicant in paragraph 5.4 that the applicant had informed number 100 as also the missing person squad, and the wireless message was circulated, and as regards the requirement of verification/identification of unidentified dead bodies, publication of photograph in the newspapers, display of photograph on TV, circulation of pamphlet, it is pleaded that no photograph of the missing person was available and hence these steps could not be taken by the applicant.
4. What clearly emerges from the facts as mentioned above is that even though, it is not clearly mentioned in the charge that the applicant had not taken such steps as were required when the DD entry was lodged with regard to a person missing, but the word check mentioned in the charge can well be said to mean so, particularly when the applicant was conscious of it and sought to rebut the same by making a mention of the steps that he had taken. However, such steps that might have been taken by the applicant have not been taken into consideration by the enquiry officer or any of the authorities punishing the applicant. What comes out from the report of the enquiry officer is that the applicant had taken no steps. If the applicant had taken some steps, the question that would arise would be as to whether the same were sufficient or not. In the corresponding para of the written statement, the contents of para 5.4 of the OA have not been specifically denied. The applicant had been pleading the steps that he had taken in the course of enquiry as well, although as regards no photograph being available of the missing person, and, therefore, other steps as have been mentioned by the enquiry officer not having been taken, have been pressed at the time of filing the present OA. Inasmuch as, the concerned authorities have not discussed the adequacy of the steps taken by the applicant, the matter needs to be remitted for a fresh decision. It is pertinent to mention here that no other allegation against the applicant has been proved. The only allegation proved against him is that he had not taken such steps as were required in the case of missing persons. Once, there was an explanation, the same required to be dealt with.
5. In totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, while setting aside the impugned orders, we remit the matter to the disciplinary authority, who may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after taking into account the explanation furnished by the applicant as regards the steps taken by him when DD entry number 20-A dated 20.4.2002 for missing person came to be recorded in PS/Shakarpur. Even though, it has been pleaded in the OA only that no photograph of the missing person was made available to the applicant and that the steps required to be taken as mentioned by the enquiry officer could not be taken without the photograph being available, and there is no specific denial to the same, this aspect also needs to be looked into to do complete justice. While thus setting aside the orders as mentioned above, we would direct the disciplinary authority to go into the explanation given by the applicant before the enquiry officer in his defence statement as also as regards non-availability of the photograph of the missing person, and, therefore, there being no possibility to take such steps as have been mentioned by the enquiry officer into consideration.
6. The Original Application is allowed to the limited extent as mentioned above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/