Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Surender Singh vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors on 4 August, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.1987/2008
New Delhi, this the 4th day of August, 2009
Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J)
Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A)
Shri Surender Singh
No.1685/D.S.W.Zone,
PCR, New Delhi.
Applicant.
(By Advocate : Shri J.K. Sharma)
Versus
1. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors
Through its Chief Secretary
Players Building,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
2. Addl. Commissioner of Police,
PCR, Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Delhi
3. Deputy Commissioner of Police
PCR, Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Delhi
. Respondents.
(By Advocate : Mrs. Sumedha Sharma)
: O R D E R :
Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) :
Shri Surender Singh, the Applicant herein, while working as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police was first suspended, and later on reinstated. He was punished by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 19.9.2007 with the punishment of forfeiture of one year of approved service permanently along with the period of suspension from 26.6.2006 to 20.9.2007 being treated as period not spent on duty. He challenged the said order before the Appellate Authority, who having considered the same, passed order dated 3.7.2008, where by the punishment was reduced to forfeiture of one year service temporarily and the suspension period was treated as not spent on duty. Being aggrieved by both orders he has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the prayer to quash and set aside the orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities.
2. Facts of the case would reveal that a joint departmental enquiry was initiated against (i) SI Kehar Singh, (ii) the Applicant, (iii) Ct. Sumer Singh and (iv) Ct. Barmeswar Goswami in the order No.3032/PCR & No.7872-7906/HAP (P-II)/PCR dated 24.05.2007 (Annexure-D). The Inquiry was based on the allegation that on 25.5.2006 one Manoj Kumar a B.Sc student of Delhi University S/o Sh. Rajendra Prasad R/o RZ -686/14-B, Gali No.27 E-2, Sadh Nagar, Part-II Palam Colony, New Delhi, went to Meerut on his motor cycle. Next day (26.5.2006) while returning home at about 09.30 PM, he met with an accident at Mohan Nagar (Ghaziabad). A message was flashed by the Ghaziabad Police to the Delhi Police Control Room about the admission of Manoj Kumar in the hospital and to inform his family. This message was recorded at PP Mangla Puri (Palam), P.S. Dabri vide DD No.29 dated 11.20 PM dated 26.5.2006. However, the staff on PP Mangla Puri (Palam) did not deliver this message to his family members till 31.5.2006. Meanwhile Manoj Kumar was shifted to GTB hospital on 27.5.2006 and was admitted as unknown vide MLC No.6577 of Narender Mohan Hospital, who died on 30.5.2006. The Post Mortem of Manoj Kumar was conducted on 01.06.2006. Sh. Rajendra Prasad father of Manoj Kumar blamed SI Kehar Singh, the then I/C PP as he was well known to his family and the complainant was in constant touch with SI Kehar Singh. Instead of lodging a missing report at PP Mangla Puri (Palam), SI Kehar Singh, misguided them to approach Meerut Police for missing report with the plea that his son had started returning from Meerut. Later, SI Kehar Singh did not show them the Roznamcha Register and rather told them that no message was received. Respondents considered it a clear lapse on the part of SI Kehar Singh and a gross failure and negligence because the deceaseds family was in constant touch with him during the crucial period of deceaseds hospitalization at GTB Hospital. It was further alleged that Ct. Barmeshwar, who recorded the message from PCR for giving message to Sh Rajendra Prasad at house No. RZ-686/14-B, Gali No.27 E-2, Sadh Nagar, Part-II Palam Colony, New Delhi regarding the accident of Manoj Kumar recorded House No.6868 instead of 686. A DD No.29 of PP Mangla Puri (Palam) dated 26.5.2006 was lodged by South west District, Control Room marked to the Applicant for giving message to Sh. Rajender Prasad at House No.6868/14-B, Gali No.27, E-2, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, Delhi regarding the accident of Manoj Kumar who was admitted at Narender Mohan Hospital, Ghaziabad, UP. It is the Applicants case that he along with Const. Sumer Singh went there but could not trace the address as the house number was not correct. The Applicant kept the matter pending and the address was not traced till 31.5.2006. Though the house number was wrong, other particulars i.e. fathers name of deceased, street number etc. were correct. Manoj Kumars parents were informed only on 31.5.2006, at PP Mangla Puri (Palam) by the Applicant and others. The Applicant was placed under suspension vide DD No.18-B, PS Dabri, SWD dated 26.6.2006 (Annexure-C) and was subsequently reinstated from suspension vide office order No.13975-14005/HAP (P-II)/PCR dated 11.9.2007 without prejudice to the departmental enquiry pending against him. The Inquiry Officer farmed charges against the Applicant and 3 others under Section 21 of Delhi Police Act 1978 on 18.6.2007 and the written statement of defence was submitted by him on 28.8.2007. ACP P.D. Sharma, the Inquiry Officer submitted his Report on 3.9.2007 holding the charges as proved. The Disciplinary Authority (Shri Ajay Kumar) DCP, PCR, agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, inter alia, passed order dated 19.9.2007 (Annexure-B) imposing the punishment of forfeiture of one year of approved service permanently and treated the period of suspension as period not spent on duty. The Applicant, having been aggrieved by the said punishment order, appealed against the same to the Appellate Authority (Ujjwal Mishra, Addl. Commissioner of Police, Operations, Delhi). The Applicant was heard by the Appellate Authority on 30.5.2008 and the order in Applicants appeal was passed vide the order dated 3.7.2008 (Annexure-A) and the punishment was reduced to forfeiture of one year of approved service temporarily treating the suspension period not spent on duty. Against these orders, the Applicant is before this Tribunal in this OA.
3. Shri J.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the Applicant raised the following contentions :- (i) The joint enquiry was conducted against 3 delinquents including the Applicant in which 2 delinquents were exonerated with Censure/Warning treating the suspension period spent on duty, but the Applicant alone had been imposed the punishment. (ii) The address of Shri Rajendra Prasad was not correct in the sense that he was given house number 6868 whereas correct number was 686, the Applicant could not locate the address. It is contended that Applicants effort to trace the address has been revealed in the statements of Defence witnesses. (iii) The Inquiry Officer had not considered the defence evidence of the Applicant. (iv) The punishment imposed on the Applicant was higher, excessive and disproportionate to the misconduct. (v) Ct. Barmeswar Goswami who flashed the message with wrong house number, though committed serious misconduct, was exonerated but the Applicant was imposed major penalty. (vi) Another contention raised relates to the point that SI Kehar Singh who knew the deceased family, did not inform the facts because he was closely associated in investigating a Bank robbery case which was considered by the IO. But in case of Applicant, the IO did not consider his engagements in Court works in Patiala House Courts. In view of the above, Shri Sharma submitted that the OA should be allowed.
4. On the other hand, Mrs. Sumedha Sharma, the learned counsel for Respondents opposed the contentions of the counsel for the Applicant. She informed that Constable Sumer Singh the co-defaulter was imposed the same punishment and he had not even approached this Tribunal. This, she contends, goes to prove the reasonableness and proportionality of punishment to the misconduct even accepted by the Applicants co-delinquent. She further submitted that except the error in the house number (6868 in place of 686), rest of the address being correct, it would be easy for a Police Official to find out the house of Rajendra Kumar. The Applicant did not take proper action on the DD 29 dated 26.5.2006 and delayed for 5 days to pass the message. She contended that all the grounds and plea taken by the Applicant were after thought. She argues that the OA needs to be dismissed.
5. The Inquiry Officer proceeded in the joint departmental enquiry against 4 Police Officials, received their defence statement, heard 10 Prosecution and 7 Defence witnesses, and perused the documentary evidence. His discussion of evidence and conclusion are as follows:-
There are only 3 material witnesses in the Joint DE and they are Mr. Rajender Prasad , his wife Smt. Roop Rani and his daughter Ms. Madhubala. They have been examined as PW-1, 2 and 3 respectively. They spoke against S.I. defaulter and ASI defaulter. They labeled wild allegations against the defaulter S.I. They appear to be biased against the S.I., which have no relevance except the one that the information written in DD No.29 dated 26.5.2006 could not be communicated to them. Rests of the PWs are formal in nature. During cross examination, the material witnesses avoided the questions and they did not come truthfully. The call details of the mobile phones clearly established that the facts given in the complaint are not true.
I have carefully gone through the evidence and the documents on record. The pleas raised by defaulter SI Kehar Singh have force and are relevant. The pleas taken by ASI Surender Singh and Ct. Sumer Singh are not convincing. They failed to locate the address and did not take up the matter in the next morning. The pleas taken by defaulter Ct. Barmeshwar are convincing and thus accepted.
CONCLUSION Although the defaulter SI Kehar Singh remained busy with a Bank Robbery case of P.S. Vikas Puri of West District as is evident from the record, yet he was expected to be more careful about monitoring the daily diary, staff working under the affairs of the PP. This much of negligence stands proved against him, as such the charge against him is proved. The defaulter ASI Surender Singh and Ct. Sumer Singh cannot escape from the charge of misconduct because they were on emergency duty and DD No.29 was attended by them. If the H.No. was not traced in the night , they should have made efforts in the next morning because incorrect house number i.e 6868, the rest of the part of the address were correct. As such the other charges against both of them are proved. The charge against Ct. Barmeshwar has not been proved as is evident from the record.
6. After receipt of the Joint Enquiry Report from the Inquiry Officer, the 3 delinquents including Applicant were served with a copy. On receipt of their written representation, the Disciplinary Authority made a detailed analysis delinquent Police Official wise and passed a common considered order. His analysis and order in respect of the Applicant and the beat Constable attached to the Applicant are extracted below:
The defaulter, ASI Surender Singh, No.1685/D has pleaded that on receipt of the information, he along with Beat constable Sumer Singh, No.3032/PCR tried to locate the address but the house Number was incorrect. They contacted the people in the locality but they stated that there was no house number 6868 in the street. The colony is unauthorized and house number is not systematic. On 31.5.2006, when the family of deceased Manoj Kumar came to the PP, they were informed about matter by the I/CPP. The wrong house number, the unfamiliarity of the family of deceased Manoj Kumar came to the PP, they were informed about matter by the I/C PP. The wrong house number, the unfamiliarity of the family in the street, his work load, haphazard house numbering and his newness to the area were the causes due to which he could not locate the address of the complainant.
Disciplinary authority observed that the plea raised by the defaulter is an after thought because though the house number was mentioned as 6868 instead of 686 yet other details i.e. parentage of the deceased, Gali No.etc. was available in the DD entry but he did not make any effort to trace out the family of the deceased. His plea that he was a new face in the division cannot be accepted as Beat Constable of the area was also accompanying him.
The defaulter Const. Sumer Singh, No.3032/PCR has pleaded that on 26.5.2006 he accompanied ASI Surender Singh, No.1685/D to inform the parents of Mr. Manoj Kumar but could not locate the address due to incorrect house No. Though he was the Beat Constable, yet he has no occasion to know either Manoj Kumar or his parents. He further pleaded that he is at the lowest rank of the department and should not be held guilty for being failed to trace out the wrong address. The senior officer was also on the job so the junior cannot be punished for the failure. He has also cited an OA No. 1165/2004 titled Om Prakash Vs. GNCT & Ors and quoted part of court order that when senior officer is present junior will not be held responsible.
The plea raised by the defaulter carries no weight because being Beat Constable, he was supposed to be well, acquainted with the people/area of his beat. Though the house No was incorrect yet other details i.e parentage, Gali No. etc., were correct but he did make any effort to trace out the family of the deceased. It is also pertinent to note that the deceased was already involved in two criminal cases. The plea of the defaulter that a senior officer has already deputed for the job and he being junior rank cannot be held responsible for not informing the family members of the deceased has no force as he was the Beat Const. of the area and should have been well acquainted with the people and area of his Beat.
.
Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in its totality and agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, I Ajay Kumar, DCP, PCR, Delhi do hereby award the punishment of censure to SI Kehar Singh, No.D/3655 for the supervisory lapse. ASI Surender Singh No.1685/D and Const. Sumer Singh, No.3032/PCR were awarded the punishment of forfeiture of one year approved service permanently entailing reduction in their pay from Rs.5200 p.m. to Rs.5100 p.m and Rs.4730 p.m. to Rs.4645 p.m. respectively, which will meet the ends of justice. The Const. Barhmeswar Goswami No.1861/PCR is hereby exonerated from the charge as no misconduct is made out against the constable. The suspension period of SI Kehar Singh No.D-3655 from 26.02.2007 to 30.08.07 is decided as period spent for all intents and purposes whereas the suspension period of ASI Surender Singh, No.1685/D from 26.06.2006 to 10.09.2007 is decided a period not spent on duty.
7. On receipt of the appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority heard the Applicant, considered all relevant facts and made a comprehensive analysis and came to the considered conclusion by reducing the penalty which means he weighed the proportionality of punishment for the proved charges. The following paragraph is relevant for us to quote here.
I have carefully gone through the appeal of the appellant, parawise comments submitted by DCP/PCR as well as relevant record in DE file. The appellants were also heard in O.R. on 30.5.2008. During oral submission, they reiterated the pleas so mentioned in their representations/replies given against the finding of EO as well as in appeal. They did also express about their performance of duty and previous records. In the present case I am of the view that (1) defaulter S.I. Kehar Singh being Incharge of the Police post was suppose to supervise the work and conduct of the subordinate staff posted under him and to ensure proper action on the information(s) received in the Police post. Plea of S.I. that he was busy with a Bank robbery case of P.S. Vikas puri etc. carries no weight and does not absolve him from his supervisory responsibilities. (2) Plea taken by defaulter ASI Surender Singh that due to wrong house number, the unfamiliarity of the family in the street, his work load, hap hazard numbering of houses in the area and his newness carries weight to some extent, but since the name of parents of deceased and gali number were already mentioned in the said D.D. entry it was his duty to make utmost efforts to trace out the family of the deceased, which he failed to do so. (3) Plea raised by the defaulter Ct. Sumer Singh carries no weight because being Beat Constable, he was supposed to be well acquainted with the people/area of his Beat. Though the house number was incorrect yet the other details i.e. parentage, Gali No etc were correct but he did make any fruitful effort to trace out the family of the deceased. Another plea of the defaulter that since a senior officer was already deputed for the job, therefore, he being junior rank cannot be held responsible for not informing the family members of the deceased has no force at all.
Therefore, keeping in view of totality of facts, assessment of the circumstances of the case and their service records etc. I uphold the punishment of censure awarded to the appellant S.I. Kehar Singh No.3655/D and reduce the quantum of punishment of forfeiture of one year approved service permanently in respect of ASI Surender Singh No.1685/D and Ct. Sumer Singh No.3032/PCR upto forfeiture of one year approved service, temporarily, entailing proportionate reduction in their pay. As regard to the suspension period of the defaulters, I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of disciplinary authority.
8. Having heard the rival contentions and perused the pleadings, the following undisputed and admitted facts emerge:-
7 Manoj Kumar, S/o Rajendra Prasad met with an accident at Mohan Nagar (Ghaziabad) on 26.5.2006 at 9.30p.m.
7 A message was flashed by Ghaziabad Police to Delhi Control Room about the accident and admission of Manoj Kumar to a Hospital and to inform his family.
7 The message was recorded at PP Mangalapuri in DD 29 of 26.5.2006 at 11:20 pm. 7 On 27.5.2006 Manoj Kumar was transferred to GTB Hospital who died on 30.5.2006 in the Hospital.
7 The DD 29 of 26.5.2006 was entrusted to the Applicant and beat constable Sumer Singh to inform Rajendra Prasad about the accident and hospitalization of his son Manoj Kumar.
7 The message of the Manoj Kumars accident was passed on to his father Rajendra Prasad on 31.5.2006 by the Applicant and other staff of Mangalapuri PP.
9. The dispute between the Applicants claim and Respondents assertion revolves round the address of Rajendra Prasad, more specifically the house number. DD 29 of 26.5.2006 gave the address as follows :-
Shri Rajendra Prasad House No.6868/14B, Gali No.27-E-2 Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, Delhi.
The only difference from the actual address was the House Number, the real house number being RZ/686/14. All other details in the address given in the DD No.29 were correct.
10. The Inquiry Officer has clearly brought out the undisputed fact that Shri Rajendra Kumar (father of Manoj Kumar who met with accident on 25.5.2006 and succumbed in the Hospital on 30.5.2006) received the message from the Applicant only on 31.5.2006, though the Applicant was given the DD No.29 on 26.5.2006. He along with the beat Constable did not inform for 5 days. Two pleas for the belated information taken by the Applicant are (i) he could not locate the house since the House Number given to him of Shri Rajendra Prasad was wrong (6868 was given in DD 29 but correct house number was 686); and (ii) he was busy in Court works. The Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority have inter alia analysed both pleas and did not accept the grounds. Of course, it is the Applicant who has to prove why he took 5 days to inform the message to Shri Rajendra Prasad when the area, locality, Gali Number and name were available with him and the Beat Constable acquainted with the area was assisting him. Burden of proof in this case gets shifted to the Applicant since admittedly the message was passed on after 5 days. The Applicant could not bring in any other convincing reason(s) to defend the case of delay in passing the message.
11. We also note that 3 delinquents have been imposed punishment. The SI Kehar Singh has been imposed Censure for his supervisory lapse and Ct. Sumer Singh imposed the same penalty as those of the Applicant, since both were primarily responsible. Thus the Applicants plea that others were censured/exonerated is not true.
12. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation but to accept the arguments of the Counsel for Respondent. We find that the evidence received in the enquiry has been correctly analysed and punishments imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Based on the facts revealed in the enquiry report, we find that the Applicant is guilty of the misconduct. We also find that proper procedure was followed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities in the disciplinary case and their orders are reasoned and speaking orders.
13. From the point of view of proportionality of punishment, the Appellate Authority having reduced the punishment, has taken into account the proved misconduct into account. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that the Applicant does not make out a case in his support.
14. Taking into account the above facts and circumstances of the case, we conclude that Original Application is bereft of merits and is dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (M. Ramachandran)
Member (A) Vice Chairman
/pj/