Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Shiv Raj Singh Sidhu vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 28 September, 1999
JUDGMENT
R.K. Nehru, Vice-Chairman
1. This order/judgment will dispose of OA No. 962-CH of 1998, OA No. 130-CH of 1999 and Contempt Petition No. 36/99 in OA No. 130-CH of 1999.
2. In OA 962-CH of 1998, prayer is made by the applicant for staying departmental proceedings till the representation dated 28.5.98 submitted by him to the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration is disposed of. In OA 130-CH of 1999, challenge is made by him to the show cause notice dated 18.12.98 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T. Chandigarh to show cause as to why the punishment of dismissal from service may not be imposed upon him. In the Contempt Petition 36/99 in OA 130-CH of 1999, prayer is made by the applicant for initiating contempt proceedings against the Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T. Chandigarh for wilfully disobeying the direction of this Tribunal contained in order dated 12.3.99.
2. The relevant facts which deserve consideration for disposal of the aforesaid applications may be noticed as under:--
3. The applicant is serving as Inspector, Chandigarh Police, Chandigarh. He sent compliant No. D-2041/Inspr. MT dated 10.10.96 to the President of India with a copy to W/IGP, U.T. Chandigarh videEndstt. No. D-2041/Inspr. MT/UTdated 10.10.96. The Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) construed the complaint as an indiscipline and infringement of rules. He ordered departmental inquiry under Punjab Police Rule 16.24, Shri Baldev Singh, SP/CID was appointed as Inquiry Officer.
4. The complaint addressed to the President of India dated 10.10.96 is exhibited as PW/1 in the Enquiry File. In the complaint allegation of irregularities and improprieties are made against Shri Y.S. Dadwal, former IGP, U.T. Chandigarh, Sh. Manoj Yadav S.P. Security and Sh. Asa Nand, Dy. Superintendent of Police (Traffic) inter-alia, for causing public humilation to Traffic Police Personnel on duty on 13.5.96 by conducting unwarranted personal search of those Traffic Police Personnel on duty in public place. It is also stated there that the Inspector General of Police (IGP) Chandigarh conveyed to him that his request for personal hearing by the President of India made prior to filing of the complaint has been turned down.
5. The Enquiry file reveals that the applicant also addressed representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T. Chandigarh (Exhibited as PW/3) and to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh (Exhibited as PW/5). These exhibits are part of the Enquiry File. Vide No. 3000-2/SP/HQ and City/UT dated 12.12.07, Shri Baldev Singh, Superintendent of Police, HQ and City, U.T. Chandigarh (Inquiry Officer) formulated the allegations. The same reads thus:--
"It is alleged that you Insp. Shiv Raj Singh Sidhu, when you were working as Incharge M.T. Section Police Lines Sector 26 Chandigarh addressed a complaint to Hon'ble President of India vide No. D-2036/Insp/MT dated 10.10.96 directly without routing through proper channel. A copy of the same was sent by you vide endorsement No. D-2041 /Insp/IT/UT dared 10.10.96 to W/IGP/ UT Chandigarh. As per P.P.R. 14.27 Police officers are prohibited from approaching the officials of other department for their individual claims in the matter of punishment and appeals. Moreover your request for representation to Hon'ble President of India was specifically not permitted and was conveyed to you vide office Order No. 20962/UT/(E-1) dated 11.9.96. Similarly transfer in Govt. department are made as per the Administrative requirements and not for the convenience of the individual. The rule also further clarifies that if baseless and frivolous allegation's are levelled against the seniors which can not be substantiated, the subordinate applicant can be departmentally dealt with. You by falsely and baselessly levelled allegations against the Senior officers including IGP that his Transfer Policy is wrong and he did not took aciion against the then SP/Security/Traffic for certain lapses. This also amounts to the violation of the above said rule.
So you have there by violated the mandatory instructions mentioned in PPR 14.27 by making the above said act and your act amounts to misconduct, indiscipline, infringement of rules. You are hereby called upon to Explain your conduct.
Sd/-
Baldev Singh Superintendent of Police H.Q. & City, UT Chandigarh"
6. The Summary of allegations alongwith list of documents and PWs to be relied upon in the departmental enquiry were received by the applicant on 15.12.1997.
7. The Inquiry Officer recorded ocular evidence on 6.5.98 and 11.5.98. The Inquiry Officer framed charge on 20.5.98 and submitted the same to the W/SSP for approval. The approval was accorded on 1.6.98. A copy of the charge was received by the applicant under protest on 11.6.98. He submitted an application dated 13.6.98 to the Inquiry Officer saying that he wanted to examine five witnesses mentioned therein to prove his innocence. The witnesses mentioned therein were:--
1. Sh Bhagat Ram, Senior Assistant (Dealing hand) Establishment Branch Office of the I.G.P. U.T. Chg.
2. Sh. R.P. Singh, the Dy. D.A. (Legal) Office of the I.G.P. U.T. Chandigarh.
3. Shri C.S.R. Reddy, the SSP/UT, Chandigarh.
4. Sh. R.P. Singh, the IGP/UT, Chandigarh.
5. Sh. Swaran Singh, Senior Assistant office of the Home Secretary, U.T. Chandigarh (Dealing Assistant of Police Department).
8. The applicant submitted an application on 28.5.98 to the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration for change of Inquiry Officer. Vide application dated 5.6.98 addressed to the Inquiry Officer, the applicant prayed for staying the inquiry proceedings till the disposal of his representation for change of the inquiry officer. Vide application dated 9.7.98, the applicant solicited the help of the inquiry officer for summoning the defence witnesses. No action is stated of have been taken in this application. The Inquiry Officer passed the following order on 11.8.98:--
"Subject: D.E. against Insp. S.S. Sidhu The following D.Es were ordered against you. One D.E. vide No. 256/RD/EDs/ SSP/Chandigarh dated 19.2.97 and the charge in this D.E. was served upon you on 11.6.98. In response to this, you have produced the list of 5 DWs. Now, a period of 2 months has been elasped, but you have not produced even a single DW so far. Similarly, in the second DE No. 742/UT/RD.DEs/SSP/Chandigarh dated 17.4.98, you have produced a list of 12 DWs, out of them only 6 DWs were produced and the remaining DWs are not being produced by you despite repeated reminders sent to you. And as such, you are deliberately avoiding to do so by non-cooperating attitude with the undersigned. The matter is being delayed day by day and senior officers are pressing hard for the same.
Hence, you are hereby given last opportunity to produce the remaining DWs as per list given by you in both the DEs by 20.8.98, failing which action according to rules shall be taken against you. It is again reiterated that this is the last opportunity.
Sd/-
Baldev Singh 11.8.98 Superintendent of Police H.Q. & City, UT Chandigarh Insp. Shivraj Singh Sidhu I/C Institutional Guards Sector 26, Chandigarh"
On June 30, 1998, the Inquiry Officer passed the following orders:--
"No. D-2/23/SP/HQ and City (UT) Chg. dated 30.6.1998.
In the D.E. pending against you with the undersigned, you submitted the list of DWs. But so far you only produced two DWs out of 13 DWs, as per the list which is not satisfactory. You are once again directed to produce all the DWs within a week, failing which it would be presumed that you deliberately not producing the same and further action shall be taken."
On August 21, 1998, the Inquiry Officer passed the following orders:--
"No. 2670/SP/HQ and City (UT) dated the 21.8.1998.
Subject : Departmental enquiry.
I was marked the enquiry vide No. 27567/UT/E-1 (256/RD/DES/SSP dated 19.2.97) dated 22.2.97 against you. In this enquiry you were served upon charge on 11.6.98 and you give list of DWs numbering 5 (five) on 13.6.98. After that you did not produce any witness so far inspite of verbal directions given to you on 19.6.98, 23.6.98, 21.7.98, 31.7.98 and 17.8.98 when you appeared in my office. Again on 11.8.98 you were served with a letter No. D-2591/SP/HQ and City (UT) dated 11.8.98 and you were required to produce all the DWs on 20.8.98 failing which you were told that next action will follow.
You instead of producing any witness had sent a letter dated 20.8.98 to me taking different plea with a view to delay the enquiry proceedings. I have carefully gone through your application and am of the view that producing of DWs is a sole responsibility of your and you are taking one plea or the other and is not producing the DWs in the enquiry.
As a matter of giving the natural justice, fair trial and chances of defend to be given, I am again giving you a chance to produce all the DWs on 24.8.98 at 10.00 AM. Please take it as last and final chance to you."
9. On August 25, 1998, the Inquiry Officer passed the following order:--
"A letter bearing its number D-2670/SP/HQ and City dated 21.8.98 was given to you by hand on 21.8.98. In which you were asked to produce all the DWs on 24.8.98 at 10.00 AM in connection with Departmental Enquiry pending against you vide No. 256/RD/DEs/SSP/UT dated 19.2.97. It was also mentioned in that letter that it is the last and final chance to you. But you have failed to produce the DWs as per the stipulated time period.
Now I am hereby closing the defence in this enquiry and by way of this letter you are being served a notice that you produce your written statement within 7 (seven) days from the receipt of this letter."
10. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer submitted inquiry report to the W/SSP. After receipt of the inquiry report, show cause notice was issued to the applicant vide No. 35888/UT (E-I) dated 4.12.1998. The show cause notice reads thus:--
"Subject: Issue of Show Cause Notice of SSP to Inspector S.S. Sidhu No. CHG/24.
MEMORANDUM Enclosed please find herewith a show cause notice of W/SSP bearing No. 35784/UT(E-I) dated 18.12.98 which may please be delivered to Inspector S.S. Sidhu No. CHD/24 and acknowledgement with date in token of having received the same by him, be sent to this office for record within a week positively.
For Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T. Chandigarh."
11. The aforesaid show cause notice is under challenge in the OA No. 130-CH of 1999 and CP-36 of 1999.
12. During the pendency of the departmental inquiry, the applicant submitted his representation to the Inspector General of Police, U.T. Chandigarh. In the representation, it is stated that Shri Baldev Singh has been designated as Superintendent of Police vide Notification No. 4396-H/III(I) 96/20047 dated 12.10.96. The IGP, U.T. was not competent to effect transfer and posting of Superintendent of Police as provided in the Punjab Police Rules 14.15(2) (i) and only the competent authority was the Governor-cum-Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh. The order of the IGP reads that Shri Baldev Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police has been designated as Superintendent of Police, and on the basis of this, he would not be entitled to claim promotion or seniority. Pursuant to the order of re-designation, Shri Baldev Singh took the charge of the Superintendent of Police. The I.G.P. vide No. 24567-69/UT/E-l dated 14.10.96 issued the order which reads thus:--
"On promotion, Shri Baldev Singh is designated and posted as District Commandant Home Guards, U.T. Chandigarh, with immediate effect. He will be reporting directly to the Commandant General Home Guards, U.T. Chandigarh."
13. The representation dated 25.8.1998 addressed to the Inspector General of Police, U.T. Chandigarh by the applicant pointed out the irregularities. The Punjab Police Rule 14.15 available at page 155 of the Inquiry File say that only the Governor is competent to effect transfer and posting of the officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police or for its rcdesignation in the Police Rules. The IGP was not competent to order promotion to the rank of Supdt. of Police.
14. The applicant filed reply to the show cause notice issued by the SSP, UT, Chandigarh. In reply to the show cause notice, he pointed out that the SSP was not competent to issue the show cause notice to him proposing punishment of dismissal from service. The Punjab Police Rule 16.12 lays down that the Deputy Inspector General of Police is the competent authority to inflict such punishment on the official of the rank of Inspector of Police. He referred to numerous decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to the effect that show cause notice could only be issued by the competent authority and in the case of the applicant it was the Dy. Inspector General of Police. It was also pointed that the departmental inquiry was vitiated and it was conducted by Shri Baldev Singh, Superintendent of Police, HQ-City although he was not the competent authority to hold this inquiry. It was also highlighted that the entire enquiry was conducted inviolation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity was afforded to him to examine the defence witnesses.
15. The applicant has further stated that the inquiry officer was under great pressure from the higher officers of the Police Department to conclude the inquiry expeditiously. The Inquiry Officer in his endeavour to comply with the orders of the senior officers did not hesitate even to record these facts in his order dated 11.8.1998.
16. The Inquiry Officer, to say the least, acted in an arbitrary manner. He did not understand that he should at least follow the principles of fair play and natural justice. In the instant case, it was wholly unjustified to appoint an inquiry officer who was directly under the control of the IGP/SSP and against whom the allegations of high handedncss had been made in the complaint addressed to the President of India which led to the departmental inquiry. Where there is allegation against the superior officer, he should not hold the inquiry himself nor it should be conducted by an officer who is subordinate to him.
17. Rule 16.1(i) of the Punjab Police Rules says that the Dy. Inspector General of Police is the competent authority to impose penalty of dismissal from service on the official of the rank of Inspector of Police. It is indisputed that the police force in the Chandigarh Administration is governed by the Punjab Police Rules. The show cause notice and the resultant punishment, in this case, have been issued/inflicted by a person not competent to do so. Even the departmental inquiry was ordered by an officer who was not competent.
18. During the pendency of the OA 130-CH of 1999, MA 228/99 was moved for not implementing the order reducing the rank of the applicant. This Bench passed the order dated 12.3.99 in the presence of the Counsel for the applicant and the Counsel for the respondents Mr. N.K. Bhardwaj to the effect that status quo in regard to the rank of the applicant as he was holding in the department on date be maintained. The applicant pleads that pursuant to the order for status quo his salary for the month of March was drawn as Inspector. The IGP addressed communication to him to write confidential reports of Constables and Head Constables and in these communications he was addressed as Inspector of Police. These documents placed on record in the Contempt Petition do point out that afterpassing the order dated 12.5.99, the applicant was treated as Inspector of Police. The applicant also pleads that during the months of April, May, he was shown as Sub-Inspector. He pleads that there is violation of the order of this Bench of the effect that status quo in the rank be maintained. Prima-facie there appears to be substance in the submission of the applicant. However, we refrain from expressing any opinion on this aspect of the matter in view of our final decision in the main OA.
19. The inquiry proceedings are vitiated being conducted in violation of" principles of natural justice, and by a person who was apparently biased. The Inquiry Officer was to act fairly and in consonance, with the principles of natural justice and fair play. We don't think that in the present circumstances of the case, it is proper to order denovo inquiry as the applicant for his outspokenness and keenness to serve the cause that transparency should be maintained in the Police department has been made to suffer humiliation and harassment for more than two years. He has been inflicted uncalled pain and sufferings. It will be in the interest of justice that the matter should be dropped for all times to come. The applicant's rank is restored and he will continue as Inspector of Police ignoring the order reducing his rank, with all consequential benefits.
20. For reasons recorded above, OA 130-CH of 1999 is allowed. The show cause notice and the infliction of punishment of reduction in rank is quashed. OA 962-CH of 1998 is rendered infructuous in the light of our decision in OA 130-CH of 1999 and the same is dismissed as such. Contempt Petition No. 36/99 is also rejected in view of our decision in OA 130-CH of 1999.
No costs.