Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Inspector Anil Sharma No.D/244 vs Union Of India Through on 17 October, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.1826 of 2011 This the 17th day of October, 2011 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Inspector Anil Sharma No.D/2441, PIS No.16860067 S/o Jagmal Sharma, R/o B-6/90-91, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi-110085. Applicant ( By Shri Sourabh Ahuja, Advocate ) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 3. Addl. Commissioner of Police, PCR, Delhi through Commissioner of Police, PHQ, IP Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 4. Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range, Delhi through Commissioner of Police, PHQ, IP Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. Respondents ( By Ms. Renu George, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Anil Sharma, the applicant herein, an Inspector in Delhi Police, faced a joint departmental enquiry along with his co-delinquent Inspector Rajender Singh Adhikari, and sequel thereto has been inflicted the punishment of censure, which punishment has been accorded to his co-delinquent as well, vide orders dated 30.4.2010. Appeal preferred against the order aforesaid has since been rejected by the appellate authority, vide order dated 10.12.2010. These are the orders that have been challenged by the applicant in the present Original Application filed by him under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. The enquiry officer, after recording evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of the department, framed the following charge against the applicant and his co-delinquent:
I, M.R. Gothwal, Enquiry Officer (Addl. DCP/NE Distt., Delhi) charge you, Inspr., Rajender Singh Adhikari, No. D-I/188 and Inspr. Anil Sharma, No. D/2441 while posted in PS Krishna Nagar, after acquittal in case FIR No. 158/97 u/s 302 IPC PS Krishna Nagar, a defamation suit vide suit Nos. 4/99 & 127/06 for compensation was filed by Sh. Chittaranjan Dass in which Commissioner of Police, SI Hari Singh (I.O. of the case) and other Police officials were made party. On 31.10.2006, Honble Court of Sh. A.K. Garg, ADJ, KKD, Delhi awarded the damage of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff. On 20.07.2007, the plaintiff Chittaranjan Dass again approached the Court of Sh. A.K. Garg for the execution of order dated 31.10.2006 passed by the court in his favour. Upon the application of the plaintiff, the Honble Court issued a notice to the Police and a copy of the notice along with application of petitioner was sent to PHQ fixing the matter for 13.08.2007. PHQ sent the Court papers to DCP/East from where it was sent to PS Krishna Nagar on 02.08.2007. The received Court papers were marked to you, Inspr. Anil Sharma, No. D/2441 Addl. SHO/Krishna Nagar for necessary action. However, on 13.08.2007, the matter was attended by SI Rajeev Rana of Police Station Krishna Nagar in the court of Sh. A.K. Garg, ADJ, KKD Court, Delhi. Upon arrival in the Police Station, the SI made a DD entry vide No. 48-B dated 13.08.2007 mentioning that the matter was adjourned for 22.08.2007. However, on 22.08.2007 neither you, Inspr. Rajender Singh Adhikari, No. D-I/188, he then SHO/Krishna Nagar nor Inspr. Anil Sharma, No. D/2441 the then Addl. SHO/Krishna Nagar attended the court. Moreover, neither you yourself got any feed back from the Addl. SHO/Krishna Nagar had informed the senior officers about the same as well as none of you has deputed any responsible police officer to appear in the court. As a result of which, the Honble Court took an adverse view and directed for the attachment of movable property of CP/Delhi office for realizing the decreetal amount fixing the date for appointing bailiff in the matter.
That the observations/orders of the court were immediately taken up by the senior officers with utmost priority and only after fulfilling required legal conditions the abovementioned order of attachment of movable property of CP/Delhi could be got cancelled from the Court. The awkward situation cropped up only because of lack of supervision on the part of you Inspr. Rajender Singh Adhikari, No. D-I/88, the then SHO/Krishna Nagar and carelessness, negligence and irresponsible act of you Inspr. Anil Kumar, No.D-2441, the then Addl. SHO/Krishna Nagar to whom the court notice and the application of the plaintiff were marked. Both of you failed to ensure proper `Parivi of the court matter in which Police Commissioner was made party, which makes you liable to be dealt with departmentally under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. The enquiry officer analyzed the evidence and reached the conclusion as follows:
Discussion of evidence:
It is proved by the statement of PW-3 HC Rohtas No. 327/E, PIS No. 28881510 that court papers of the court of Sh. A.K. Garg, ADJ, KKD Courts were received in PS Krishna Nagar from the office of DCP/Legal Cell/PHQ on 02.08.07 through office of DCP/East for necessary action by SHO/Krishna Nagar. However SHO marked these court papers to Addl. SHO Krishna Nagar on 02.08.07 when he was on leave. HC Rohtash, the then reader to SHO Krishna Nagar further stated in his statement that he handed over these court papers to Inspr. Anil Sharma, Addl. SHO/Krishna Nagar on 06.08.07 when he joined his duties after leave. However, there is no proof/receipt to prove that court papers were actually handed over to Addl. SHO or not. Addl. SHO stated that he was never handed over these papers to him. SI Rajiv Rana, PW stated that he attended court of Sh. A.K. Garg, ADJ, KKD Court on 13.08.07 on the instruction of SHO Krishna Nagar when he received a call on his mobile phone from SHO Krishna Nagar to attend the matter while he was present in the Karkardooma court. He was not previously briefed regarding this court case. He further stated that he lodged DD No. 48-B, dated 13.08.07, PS Krishna Nagar, mentioning therein that the court matter was adjourned for 22.08.07. He did not give any detail of court proceedings in DD No. 48-B, dated 13.08.07. This Mussnna dt. 13.08.07 was forwarded by Addl. SHO Krishna Nagar to the office of ACP/Gandhi Nagar. Addl. SHO could not know the details of the case, about which DD No. 48-B, dated 13.08.07 PS Krishna Nagar, was lodged by SI Rajiv Rana as no detail was mentioned in this DD No. 48-B, which was regarding many matters attended by SI Rajiv Rana on 13.08.07 including this court matter. On 22.08.07, neither SHO nor Addl. SHO attended the court of Sh. A.K. Garg, ADJ, KKD, Court as well as no responsible police officer was deputed to attend the Honble court, as a result of which, the Honble court took an adverse view and directed for the attachment of movable property of CP Delhi office for realizing the decreetal amount, fixing the date for appointing bailiff in the matter. Addl. SHO Krishna Nagar stated in his defence statement that he was neither handed over court papers by reader to SHO Krishna Nagar nor he was verbally told by reader to SHO, SHO or by SI Rajiv Rana regarding this court matter. So, he did not attend this court matter. However, he forwarded DD No. 48-B, dt. 13.08.07 PS Krishna Nagar which was lodged by SI Rajiv Rana and it was mentioned that case was adjourned for 22.08.07.
Conclusion :
On the basis of above discussion and whole facts, came on record, during D.E. proceedings, charge against Inspr. Rajinder Singh Adhikari No. D-I/188, the then SHO Krishna Nagar is fully proved. Charged against Inspr. Anil Kumar Sharma, No. D/2441, the then Addl. SHO Krishna Nagar is partly proved. The disciplinary authority in its order dated 30.4.2010, after referring to the background of the case concluded that the applicant was indeed guilty and thus deserved to be inflicted the punishment of censure, observing as follows:
From this discussion and the perusal of the entire record it is very clear that the fault lies with PW-2 SI Rajeev Rana, No. D/1643. Had he given in writing about what transpired in the court between him and the Honble judge and about the orders of the judge on 13.8.2007 the things would not have taken this turn. In fact, the decree of Rs.2 Lakhs in favour of Chitranjan Dass should have alerted him and he should have submitted a written report or lodged a detailed DD entry and also informed all other senior officers. He has been found totally insensitive and careless to the occasion and I recommend that he should also be dealt with departmentally for this lapse. His own statement proves his carelessness. However, this does not absolve the then SHO and Addl. SHO from their responsibility. They were the head of a small organisation called Police Station. They are not supposed to loose sight of a case referred to by the police. I, therefore, hold both SHO and Addl. SHO responsible for this avoidable lapse and award the punishment of Censure to both Sh. Rajender Singh Adhikari, SHO and Sh. Anil Sharma, Addl. SHO, PS Krishna Nagar and recommend departmental action against SI Rajeev Rana, No. D/1643 for his cavalier attitude towards such a sensitive issue. For the sake of natural justice both were heard in O.R. but they did not say anything new. The appellate authority, once again, after referring to the background of the case, vide its order dated 10.12.2010, opined against the applicant by observing as follows:
I have carefully considered the appeal in the light of fact and circumstances of the case and material available in DE file and also heard the appellant in O.R. It is wrong to say that Exhibit PW-3/G is fabricated documents. Exhibit PW-3/G is a photocopy of original Peon Book which was supplied to the appellant duly attested by ACP/Gandhi Nagar with the summary of allegations. PW-3 has also put his signature on Ex. PW-3/G. As per the testimony of PW-3, Reader of SHO/Krishna Nagar, the papers regarding the court matter was handed over to the appellant by him personally on his arrival from leave. When the appellant was very much present on 13.08.2007 and 22.08.2007, he cannot absolve himself from the responsibility by simply saying that his signature was not there on the peon book against the receipt of the said court papers. As a result of the lapses on the part of the appellant, the court viewed the matter adversely and issued attachment orders. None of the appellant pleas has any force.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have entered appearance and by filing their counter reply contested the cause of the applicant.
4. Shri Sourabh Ahuja, learned counsel representing the applicant, would contend that present is a case where, even though the enquiry officer in the discussion made by him held the applicant as not guilty, and yet held the charge partly proved, and the disciplinary and appellate authorities have, by and large, accepted the findings given by the enquiry officer. If no charge was held established against the applicant from the discussion made by the enquiry officer, there was no justification to hold the charge as partly proved; and in any case, same punishment of censure could not be inflicted upon the applicant, as was inflicted upon his co-delinquent against whom the charge was held as fully proved, thus contends the learned counsel.
5. We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. The applicant and his co-delinquent are said to have been careless in discharge of their duties, as no meaningful representation, or no representation whatsoever, was made on behalf of the respondents in the civil suit, or no responsible police officer was deputed to attend the court on two dates, i.e., 13.8.2007 and 22.8.2007. As regards the date 13.8.2007, the allegation was that representation had been made but the same was not proper, whereas, as regards 22.8.2007, no representation at all had been made, which led to passing of an order of attachment by the executing court. The enquiry officer, insofar as the applicant is concerned, would hold that the SHO Krishna Nagar, had marked the court papers to the applicant who was Addl. SHO, on 2.8.2007, when he was on leave. He referred to the statement of HC Rohtas, then Reader to SHO Krishna Nagar, who stated that he had handed over the court papers to the applicant on 6.8.2007, when he joined duties after leave. However, in the very next sentence, the enquiry officer has mentioned that there is no proof/receipt to prove that court papers were actually handed over to the applicant or not, and that the Addl. SHO, i.e., the applicant, had stated that he was never handed over the papers. Even though, no specific conclusion has been arrived at by the enquiry officer, but the discussion of evidence would leave one with clear impression based upon the statement of Rohtas that there was no proof or receipt of handing over the court papers by him to the applicant when the applicant returned from leave. With this kind of discussion, in our view, the applicant cannot be saddled with the responsibility of appearing or causing appearance on behalf of the respondents in the civil suit before the executing court on 13.8.2007. As regards appearance on 22.8.2007, the enquiry officer observed that SI Rajiv Rana stated that he attended the court on 13.8.2007 on instructions of SHO Krishna Nagar when he received a call on his mobile phone from the SHO to attend the matter while he was present in the Karkardooma court. After attending the court, he lodged DD entry No.48-B dated 13.8.2007 mentioning therein that the court matter was adjourned for 22.8.2007. This Musanna was forwarded by the applicant to the office of ACP/Gandhi Nagar. It is the positive finding of the enquiry officer that the applicant could not know the details of the case about which DD No.48-B dated 13.8.2007 was lodged by SI Rajiv Rana, as no detail was mentioned therein, and the same was regarding many court matters attended by the SI on 13.8.2007, including this matter. It is not understandable as to how after the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, as mentioned above, the charge against the applicant has been held as partly proved. As regards the date 13.8.2007, there is no positive proof at all that the applicant was informed on the said date or papers in that regard were handed over to him, and as mentioned above, a conclusion can easily be arrived from the evidence discussed by the enquiry officer himself that such papers were not handed over, as was the positive case of the applicant. As regards the date 22.8.2007, the applicant had sent the Musanna dated 13.8.2007 to ACP/Gandhi Nagar. The DD entry aforesaid contained reference to number of cases, and it is the positive finding of the enquiry officer that there were no details of the cases made therein. It is interesting to note that this finding has been confirmed by the disciplinary authority in a magnified way. The disciplinary authority has held that the fault would lie at the end of PW-2 SI Rajiv Rana, inasmuch as, had he given in writing about what transpired in the court between him and the learned Judge, and about the order passed by the court on 13.8.2007, the things would not have taken this turn, and further that in fact, the decree passed by the court should have alerted him and he should have submitted a written report or lodged a detailed DD entry, and should have also informed senior officers. The disciplinary authority goes on to hold SI Rajiv Rana totally insensitive and careless to the occasion. So much so, action has been recommended against the SI. If it was the fault of the SI and he is to be departmentally tried as well, and the allegation against him is that he did not bring to the notice of the higher authorities the proceedings conducted in the court on 13.8.2007, it is not understandable as to how the applicant could be held guilty for not appearing or causing no appearance on behalf of the respondents on 22.8.2007. We are conscious that appreciating or re-appreciating evidence may not be resorted to by the courts and tribunals in departmental proceedings, but our observations as made above are based upon the findings recorded by the concerned authorities themselves. The applicant, in ultimate analysis, has been held partly guilty only because he was the Additional SHO and was supposed to know the happenings. What the authorities have observed may be generally true, but it would yet depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, and no straitjacket formula can be laid down that whatever may go wrong with the department, SHO and Additional SHO have to be necessarily blamed.
6. Before we may part with this order, we may mention that despite the fact that censure may appear to be a minor punishment prescribed under rules, it is often seen that the same turns out as stumbling block in a big way in the matter of promotion of an officer in Delhi Police. Even though, there are instructions to state that unless the censures may be on the allegations of corruption and moral turpitude, the same may not be taken into consideration in case of promotion, but the law that has evolved is that overall service record of an officer is relevant for the purpose of his promotion. That being so, while proposing to visit a police officer with the penalty of censure, the concerned authority is to give serious thought.
7. Finding merit in the present Original Application, we allow the same. Consequently, orders dated 30.4.2010 and 10.12.2010 passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities respectively, are quashed and set aside. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/