Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri P. Vijayan vs Govt. Of Nct And Others Through on 15 July, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH : NEW DELHI O.A. NO.3606/2010 New Delhi, this the 15th day of July, 2011 CORAM: HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. KHUSHIRAM, MEMBER (A) Shri P. Vijayan, Head Constable, R/o Qtr. No.50-D, Police Colony, Modal Town-II, Delhi 110 009 Applicant (By Advocate: Shri M.K. Bhardwal) Versus Govt. of NCT and others through: 1. The Commissioner of Police, Police HQ, IP Estate, New Delhi 2. Additional Commissioner of Police, PCR, Modal Town-II, Delhi 110009 3. The Dy. Commissioner, PCR, Police HQ, IP Estate, New Delhi Respondents (By Advocate: Mrs P.K. Gupta) O R D E R
By Khushiram:
Applicant is a Head Constable in Delhi Police was subjected to departmental action on the ground that he did not send the information sheet of the accused in FIR No.455/2001. He was charge sheeted and the summary of allegations was served upon him on 23.9.2008 and was given 10 days time to file the reply. Applicant alleged that the main cause of issuance of the chargesheet against him was the observation by the learned M.M. The applicant submitted response to the charge memo which was ignored. Applicant contends that he repeatedly requested the enquiry officer during proceedings to get the report from the Municipality and Nagar Panchayat about the demolition of the house of the accused and get the challan as well as other documents namely bail bond, personal bond, information sheet to know the truth but the same were ignored by Enquiry Officer. The applicant contends that the enquiry is only a formality and he was punished on 21.8.2009 by forfeiture of 5 years of service permanently and resultant proportionate reduction in his pay. The appeal filed by him was also rejected. Aggrieved by these orders, he has filed this OA to seek mainly following reliefs:
(a) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 12.8.2010 (A-1) and order dated 21.8.2009 (A-2) and direct to give all consequential benefits.
(b) To declare the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant as unjustified.
(c) To direct the respondents to restore the service of the applicant and delete his name from the list of officials of doubtful integrity.
2. Respondents have filed the counter affidavit stating that while the applicant was posted at P.S. Timarpur, North Distt. Delhi, he had investigated case FIR No.455/2001 u/s 61/1/14 Excise Act and arrested the accused Satender Choudhary and prepared arrest documents. Being a bailable offence the accused was released on bail by the applicant on personal bond and surety by one Sh. Awadh Kishore R/o Vijay Park, Mauz Pur, Delhi for Rs.5000/5000 each. The case was sent to the Court for trial but applicant failed to produce the accused as well as surety despite issue of process to him by the Court of Ld. M.M., Delhi. Applicant also failed to issue information sheet of the said accused for verification of the address and antecedents. As a result learned M.M. took adverse view of these facts and observed that applicant had filed the incorrect address of accused as well as that of his surety and tried to ensure freedom of accused from the trial Court that the appellant despite being public servant has acted in defiance of law and has acted to defeat the very purpose of law. It is also stated that one SI Rakesh Kumar was sent at the given address of the accused but the accused was not found residing at the given address. In the departmental enquiry that followed as per law and laid down procedure, concluded the charges against the applicant as proved. As already stated by the applicant he was awarded punishment of forfeiture of five years of service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in his pay vide order dated 21.8.2009. The appeal filed by the applicant was also rejected vide order dated 12.8.2010. Respondents have contended that when SI Rakesh Kumar of P.S. Timar Pur was sent at the address of the accused he was not found residing at the given address. The respondents have justified the punishment awarded to the applicant being commensurate with the misconduct committed by him. It is also contended that the burden of producing the defence always lies on the part of the applicant but he did not produce the authentic record of MCD or Police station concerned in support of his claim with regard to the demolition of houses of accused (due to extension of Metro services) and the surety. Had he issued information sheet he could have drawn these facts to the notice of the court but he did not do so. The verification report of the Police Station Hathras is said to be undated and appears to have been issued at a later stage. The applicant was responsible to follow the rules and regulations but he failed to do so as he has given incorrect address of the accused as well as that of surety.
3. Counsel for applicant argued that the matter relates to the period 2001 whereas chargesheet was served to him in 2009. During the period of more than 8 years it was natural that the accused would have changed his address or moved to another location and in fact the house in which the accused was residing in was demolished due to laying of Metro line in Delhi and he has moved to some other place. In the case of the applicant the Court observation was in 2008 when the matter came before it for disposal. The address of the surety was verified by the Police Station at Hathras. The learned counsel argued that the basis of the Courts observation was not probed into by the enquiry officer. Referring to the cross examination of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, SI, P.S. Timar Pur, Delhi. Learned counsel stated that the SI did not procure the copy of the record of Gram Panchayat or Nagar Panchayat register, Sasni. He did not make enquiry from the first IO that he after satisfying himself as mentioned in the claim of the accused and his address correctly. He also did not enquire at P.S. Sasni, Hathras whether information sheet (Parcha No.12) was sent in the Police Station or not. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that applicant had filed incorrect address of the accused and surety, is not tenable and at best, is based on the surmises and conjectures by the Inquiry Officer. Learned counsel also argued that the charge sheet was served on the applicant in 2009 after more than 8 years of the delay from 2001 and therefore should be quashed. He also argued that the observations of the Court in this matter, which is the basis of chargesheet, are also not based on facts.
4. The learned counsel of the applicant also gave written submission subsequently wherein he stated that the PW-1 during the enquiry had stated that the PPR register maintained has been destroyed. The applicant had requested to produce the said document but to no effect. Therefore, as per the dicta of the Honble Apex Court in R.S. Negi v. Punjab National Bank, JT 2009 (2) SC 176, wherein it is held that for want of relevant documents and production of necessary witness to prove the said documents, the allegation cannot be held to be proved. It is also argued that the Appellate Authority had completely ignored the defence taken by the applicant to the effect that he never filled incorrect addresses in the bail bond. In support of his contention, the applicant referred to the availability of information sheet in the Court record as well as verification report from P.S. Hathras (UP) that his defence was not considered though it was required to be considered as per the decision of the Apex Court in M.V. Bijlani v. UNION OF India (2006) 5 SCC 88.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the accused was released on bail by the appellant on the surety and personal bond and surety of Shri Awadh Kishre, S/o Shri Udai Ram, R/o Gali No.4, H.No.416, Vijay Park, Mauz Pur, Delhi but when the case came up for trial before the Court, the appellant failed to produce the accused as well as the surety in the court despite issue of the process to him by the Court of Shri Pratap S. Malik, M.M. Delhi. The Ld. M.M. took adverse view of these facts and observed that the appellant had filed incorrect addresses of the accused and his surety and tried to ensure (the freedom of accused from) the Ld. Trial Court that the appellant despite being a public servant has acted in defiance of law. In fact, the applicant has acted to defeat the very purpose of law. S.I. Rakesh Kumar of Police Station Timar Pur, Delhi was also sent at the given address of the accused reported back that the accused was not found residing at the given address.
6. Learned counsel for respondents also submitted that the punishment has been awarded to the applicant after completion of the enquiry by passing a reasoned and detailed order. The burden of producing the defence lies on the part of the appellant, but he neither produced any authentic record of MCD or Police in support of his claim with regard to the demolition of the houses of the accused as well as that of the surety nor produced any DW in his defence. It was the prime responsibility of the applicant to follow the rules and regulations being an Inquiry Officer of the criminal case but he did not do so.
7. We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the rival parties and also perused the material on record before us. We have also called for the original record pertaining to the inquiry of the applicant, a perusal of which indicates that the Court had recorded the following order on 14.3.2008:-
As per the process received back to this court, accused Satender Chaudhary and his surety Awadh Kishore are reported to be not traceable.
Accused Satender Chaudhary was on police bail and his police bail was taken and accepted by the IO P. Vijyan.
At the time of trial accused Satender and his surety Awadh Kishre, both were required by the court. On all the process issued by the court, it is reported back that the addresses of surety and accused are incorrect. Thereafter, IO P. Vijayan was summoned and he requested for dasti process against surety and accused so that he would execute the process on accused and process was given to him.
But today, the process received back with report that the address of accused is not correct and he cannot trace this accused.
This court is of the view that the address of accused was furnished to the court by the IO P. Vijayan and today he himself has submitted the report that this address is not correct.
In these circumstances, it appears that IO H.Ct. P. Vijayan has filed an incorrect address of accused and his surety and has thus tried to ensure the freedom of the accused from the process of law.
IO H.Ct. P. Vijayan despite being a public servant has acted in defiance of law and has acted to defeat the very purpose of law. This needs a departmental inquiry against his conduct and an appropriate punishment by his department.
With these view, a copy of order be sent to the Commissioner of Police for initiating & conducting an inquiry against the IO P. Vijayan on the aforesaid point and be intimated to this court regarding the outcome of this inquiry.
A report be sent to the Commissioner of Police through P.S. Timar Pur, DCP (N) onwards.
8. From the DE file, it is also apparent that the address of the accused Satender Chaudhary was not found to be correct on verification. The IO had also checked the case file and found that no I.D. document was taken into possession by the I.O. and on verification the addresses of the accused and the surety were found incorrect, as they were not traceable. Thus the act of the I.O. i.e. the applicant, Shri P. Vijayan shows the negligence/carelessness regarding verification of the identity of the accused and the surety in this case.
9. As regards the quantum of punishment, it lies within the domain of the Disciplinary Authority. The Tribunal has very limited power to interfere in such matters unless the quantum of punishment pricks the conscious of the Court. We are of the considered view that the punishment awarded in this case is not excessive and there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the Respondents. Accordingly the OA is found to be bereft of merit and is dismissed hereby. There shall be no order as to costs.
(KHUSHIRAM) (G. GEORGE PARACKEN) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) /pkr/