Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Giri Raj vs Comm. Of Police on 18 August, 2023
1
OA No.798/2017
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.798/2017
No.7
Reserved on :31.07.2023
Pronounced on :18.08.2023
18.08.2023
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Giri Raj, Head Constable, Group (c)
Aged about 41 years,
S/o Late Sh. Jai Dayal Singh,
R/o DD-5,
5, Jeevan Park, Janak Puri,
New Delhi. ...Applicant.
(By Advocate: Shri M.K.Bhardwaj)
versus
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police HQ, IP Estate,
New Delhi
Delhi-110002.
2. Joint Commissioner of Police,
(South Eastern Range),
I.T.O. IP Estate, New Delhi.
3. The Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police
Police,
(South District),
Hauz Khas, New Delhi
Delhi--110016.
4. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
(South District),
Hauz Khas, New Delhi
Delhi--110016. ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Amit Anand)
2
OA No.798/2017
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A):
Through this OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following relief:
"(i) To quash and set aside the impugned Orders No.1776-1850/HAP/SD(P-II) dated 12.02.2014 and Order No.388-89/SO/SER(AC-II) dated 15.01.2015 and Order No.(44/2014)1081-
84/SO/SER(AC-II) dated 28.03.2016 passed by appellate authority.
(ii) To direct the respondents to restore the temporarily forfeited period of one year's approved service, with further directions to grant all consequential benefits including arrears of pay by treating the suspension period from 12.03.2013 to 12.02.2014 as spent on duty for all purposes.
(iii) To allow the O.A. with costs."
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that a regular departmental inquiry was initiated against the applicant on the allegation that while posted at Vasant Vihar Police Station, South District, he was deputed as a member of detection team and assigned duty to verify CDR's of mobile numbers for the purpose of crime detection. He sent a request to service provider for procuring CDR of mobile number belonging to VVIP. The number was obtained by him on the same day but despite knowing the number 3 OA No.798/2017 belonged to the VVIP he neither brought it to the knowledge of SHO/Vasant Vihar nor to any other senior officers. He also did not lodge any DD entry in this regard. It is alleged that he procured the CDR of this mobile number without any pre-verification as well as approval of senior officers and concealed this fact from the senior officers. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the applicant and he was placed under suspension on 12.03.2013. The applicant submits that the inquiry officer gave his findings on 11.02.2014 concluding therein that the charge leveled against the applicant was partly proved. After following the due procedure, the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the applicant had obtained the CDR of a private person who is no way connected with FICN racket and agreeing with the findings of the E.O., the disciplinary authority awarded the punishment of forfeiture of one year's approved service permanently to the applicant. His suspension was revoked and he was reinstated with immediate effect. However, his suspension period from 12.03.2013 to the date of issue of the punishment order was treated as 'period not spent on duty', for all intents and purposes. The applicant preferred an appeal to the appellate authority, who found that the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is not 4 OA No.798/2017 commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. After considering the plea taken by the applicant and facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate authority reduced the punishment to forfeiture of one year's approved service temporarily, instead of permanently vide order dated 28.03.2016. The applicant has filed this OA against the punishment orders of the disciplinary and the appellate authorities. Pursuant to the order, the respondents have filed their counter reply, followed by a rejoinder by the applicant.
3. We have perused the pleadings on record and also heard Shri M.K.Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Amit Anand, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. It is not in dispute that the applicant had sent a request to service provider for procuring CDR of a private person and he did so without any number verification as well as approval of the senior officer. It also transpires during the deposition made by PWs that CDRs of the said number were procured in good faith in the discharge of official duty, in the hope to get the valuable leads regarding information on fake currency racket. When it was noticed that the number belongs to a VVIP, the applicant neither carried out any further analysis/verification, nor destroyed the data. The 5 OA No.798/2017 appellate authority agreed that the intention of the applicant was not malafide and looking at the case in its entirety, the penalty imposed on him was also reduced.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant citing the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 570 has argued that the test of the doctrine of proportionality has not been satisfied in this case as the penalty imposed is relatively harsh on the applicant for an act which was done in good faith. The applicant in his OA followed by the learned counsel for the applicant have also claimed that the proceedings against him got vitiated, as the EO ignored the versions at the time of drawing conclusion, though they supported the version of the applicant. The learned counsel has also contended that the respondents imposed extreme punishment with predetermined notion inasmuch as the inquiry was initiated on the directions of higher officers for different reasons and ignoring the significant contributions made by the applicant in discharge of his duties in the past. It is further alleged that the EO acted in highly illegal and arbitrary manner with the intention to prove the charge somehow and he failed to act like a judge. He also submits that this is a case of no evidence as none of the witnesses 6 OA No.798/2017 has supported the charge against the applicant. There is no reference of any of the evidence in the inquiry report as adduced during the inquiry and the charges have been framed in a most unjustified, whimsical and unreasonable manner.
6. The respondents, on the other hand, have defended their action asserting that though the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment, which was harsh in nature, the appellate authority had given due consideration to the representation and reduced the penalty.
7. We have gone through the relevant records which do not show any procedural violation in the conduct of the DE. The IO prepared the summary of allegations, list of witnesses and list of relied upon documents, which were served upon the applicant along with the copies of relied upon the documents followed by the examination of witnesses. A copy of charge was served upon the applicant on 01.02.2014 and the applicant was asked to produce D.W.s in his defence. After following the laid down procedure, E.O. submitted his findings on 11.02.2014. Tentatively agreeing with the finding of the E.O., a copy of the finding was served upon the applicant on 11.02.2014 for submitting his written representation but the applicant 7 OA No.798/2017 submitted that he is not willing to give any representation against the findings of the EO. The disciplinary authority perused the findings of the EO and other relevant documents and agreeing with the findings of the EO awarded the punishment of forfeiture of one year's approved service permanently to the applicant. He was reinstated from suspension with immediate effect and his suspension period from 12.03.2003 to the date of issue of the order was treated as 'period not spent on duty. Further, the applicant preferred an appeal to the appellate authority which was duly considered and the applicant was called upon to show cause notice as to why as per the powers vested in the appellate authority vide Rule 25 (1) (d) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. The applicant submitted his reply to the show cause notice and subsequently the appellate authority also heard him on 28.07.2015 and after which the show cause notice dated 15.01.2015 was vacated and a lenient view was taken against him, as evident from the order passed by the appellate authority reducing his penalty. Therefore, we find that the grounds raised by the applicant with regard to the conduct of the inquiry do not have any merit and the 8 OA No.798/2017 judgment referred to on behalf of the applicant does not support his claim.
8. Also we are conscious that it is the sole discretion and prerogative of the disciplinary/appellate authority to impose any of the penalties listed in the disciplinary rules and we have no reason therefore to question the wisdom and authority of the disciplinary authority while passing an order with respect to such a penalty. There is also no denying of the fact that our authority is limited only to adjudicate the legality of an action and not to dwell upon the wisdom of the said authority in exercise of its legitimate powers and that the courts and Tribunal should refrain from substitute authorities' wisdom by their own assessment.
9. Moreover, in the instant case we do not find anything to suggest that the procedural safeguards have not been followed or the findings are perverse or arbitrary. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned orders.
10. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R.N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /kdr/