Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Asi Rajinder Kumar S/O P. L. Sharma vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 31 January, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application Nos.3491 & 3497 of 2011 Heard/decided on : 31st January, 2012 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) O.A. No.3491/2011 ASI Rajinder Kumar S/o P. L. Sharma, R/o RZ-30, New Hira Park, Dichau Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi. Applicant ( By Shri Yogesh Sharma, Advocate ) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. Assistant Commissioner of Police, MT Police Control Room, Delhi. Respondents ( By Ms. Renu George, Advocate ) O.A. No.3497/2011 Ajit Singh, Constable Driver S/o Rampal Singh, R/o Village & PO Kathura, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana. Applicant ( By Shri Sachin Chauhan, Advocate ) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Commissioner of Police, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police (GA), Police Control Room through Commissioner of Police, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. Asstt. Commissioner of Police, M.T., Police Control Room, through Commissioner of Police, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi. Respondents ( By Ms. Renu George, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
By this common order, we propose to dispose of two Original Applications bearing OA Nos.3491/2011 and 3497/2011, as the facts of the cases, by and large, are identical, and so are the contentions raised by the learned counsel representing the parties. As regards some difference in facts in the two cases, mention thereof shall be made hereinafter.
O.A. No.3497/20112. Ajit Singh, Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police, the applicant, questions order dated 24.08.2011, vide which recovery of Rs.87,831/- is to be effected from him for his causing damage to Government vehicle No.DL01CJ-0877 (TQ) on 14.06.2010. The applicant, vide order dated 07.08.2010, was put to a departmental trial on the following allegations:
that while posted in North West Zone/PCR he was detailed for duty as driver on MPV C-49 bearing registration N. DL 1CJ-0877 Qualis on the night intervening 13/14.06.2009 from 8.00 P.M. to 8.00 A.M. During patrolling in the area when MPV C-49 reached Bahadur Shah Road Ring Road Crossing at about 4.20 A.M. a scooter came in front of the MPV, but Const. (Dvr.) Ajit Singh, 9437 PCR could not stop the vehicle and collided with left side pavement of the road. As a result, it caused severe damage in the MPV C-49. On physical inspection of MPV C-49 by Inspr. Admn./North West Zone/PCR, it revealed that the vehicle was being driven so rashly, negligently and such a high speed on the intersection that it could not be controlled by the driver, thereby severely damaging the front portion of the MPV. The enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry on day-to-day basis. On the basis of the material that came before him, the enquiry officer recorded a conclusive finding that the charge leveled against the applicant had not been substantiated. The disciplinary authority accepted the order aforesaid and observed that the accident had taken place to save the life of a scooter rider, and that if the applicant had not taken a sharp turn towards left, the life of the scooter rider could be in danger. Operative part of the order passed by the disciplinary authority reads as follows:
I have carefully gone through the statements of PWs, written defence statement of delinquent Const. (Dvr.) and finding of the enquiry officer from the statement of PWs, it is clear that the accident took place to save the life of a scooter rider. If the driver of the PCR Van (delinquent) had not taken a sharp turn towards left the life of scooter rider could be in danger. As regards mechanical inspection report of the above said PCR Van, the said inspection was carried out on 4.9.09. After a period of 2 months and 20 days from the date of accident and the officials who had prepared the said report were not present on the spot at the time of accident and thus he has not seen the situation/circumstances under which the accident in question took place. Keeping in view of above facts, it is clear that there is no negligence on the part of delinquent Const. (Dvr.) Ajit Singh, No.9437/PCR. Therefore, I, Dheeraj Kumar, Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, GA, PCR, Delhi agreeing with the findings of Enquiry Officer, exonerate Const. (Dvr.) Ajit Singh, No.9437/PCR from the charge leveled against him and the instant DE.
3. We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. It is not understandable as to how, when the applicant has been exonerated in the enquiry and it has been held that the accident took place only in an effort to save the life of a scooterist, he could be asked to pay for the damage caused to the vehicle being driven by him. Every Government servant is supposed to discharge his duties carefully, diligently, honestly and to the best of his capability, but while doing so, some time even some loss may be caused to the Government. It is only in case there may be dereliction in duty, carelessness or negligence on the part of the employee that he may be asked to pay damages or reimburse the loss that might have been sustained by the Government, but surely not if even while discharging duties diligently and carefully, some loss may be sustained by the Government. Confronted with the position aforesaid, learned counsel representing the respondents would have nothing to urge.
O.A. No.3491/20114. Rajinder Kumar, an ASI in Delhi Police, calls in question the order dated 24.08.2011, asking him and others to pay an amount of Rs.136594/- to be recovered from their pay, on account of damage caused to Government vehicle No. DL 1CJ 3095 (MG) on 2-3.01.2010. It is not mentioned as to in what proportion the applicant and persons mentioned in the order are to pay the amount of Rs.136594/-, but it can well be presumed that they have to share it equally. Preceding the order aforesaid, the applicant, Const. Aniyan Pillai and Const. (Dvr.) Praveen Kumar, faced a departmental trial. The charge that came to be framed against all of them by the enquiry officer after recording evidence of PWs, reads as follows:
a. During the duty time you were supposed to keep your position in the beat area of the MPV i.e. Kargil Chowk, Sec. 18 Dwarka but you left the base without the permission of the senior officers and took the MPV in the beat of other MPV i.e. Sec. 14 Dwarka without informing the control Room i.e., Z-1 & Z-4.
b. The MPV overturned near Nirmal Bharti Public School due to high speed and collided with electric pole and central verge, resulting badly damage of the MPV. It seems that the MPV was chasing some private vehicle without informing the control room for ulterior motive. The enquiry officer while returning a finding in favour of the department and against the applicant and others, held the charge as proved. Even though, a joint charge came to be framed against the applicant and others, but what can be clearly made out is that insofar as the applicant is concerned, he could not be saddled with the responsibility of causing the accident. The fault, if any, as regards the accident lay exclusively with the driver of the vehicle. Insofar as the delinquency of the applicant emanating from the charge aforesaid, which is of leaving his base without permission of the senior officers and taking the MPV in the beat of other MPV, is concerned, he has been adequately punished, as the disciplinary authority, while accepting the report given by the enquiry officer, has inflicted upon him the punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of one year in the time scale of pay. Insofar as Const. Aniyan Pillai is concerned, he has been inflicted the same punishment as has been inflicted upon the applicant, whereas Const. (Dvr.) Praveen Kumar has been inflicted the penalty of forfeiture of one years approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in his pay. The applicant has been adequately punished for the part of the charge attributable to him, but, in our considered view, insofar as the part of charge as regards driving rashly and negligently causing damages to the MPV is concerned, the same was attributable to the driver of the vehicle. Confronted with the position aforesaid, learned counsel representing the respondents would have nothing to say.
5. For the reasons as mentioned above, both the Original Applications are allowed. Orders in both the cases asking the applicants to reimburse the damages, and making recovery on that behalf, are quashed and set aside. In the first case, we are told that even though stay of recovery was obtained as an interim measure at the time of issuing notice in the matter, but some money had since already been recovered from the applicant. The same shall be immediately returned to the applicant. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/