Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Ranbir Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 June, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-967/2008
New Delhi this the 30th day of June, 2009.
HONBLE SHRI L.K. JOSHI, VICE-CHAIRMAN(A)
HONBLE DR. DHARAM PAUL SHARMA, MEMBER(J)
Sh. Ranbir Singh,
Ex. SI of Delhi Police
PIS No. 28750934
R/o VPO : Majra Dabas,
PS : Kanjhwla,
Distt : North-West,
Delhi-81. . Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Anil Singal)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
through Commissioner of Police,
Police Head Quarters,
IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. Addl. C.P. (Security)
Security Main Lines,
Vinay Marg, New Delhi.
3. Sh. B.K. Mishra,
DANIPS Cadre Group B
Then D.C.P. (9th Bn. DAP)
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
4. Sh. A.A. Farooqui,
DANIPS Cadre Group B
Then D.C.P. (9th Bn. DAP)
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
5. D.C.P. (9th Bn. DAP)
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi. . Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Ram Kanwar)
O R D E R
Shri L.K. Joshi, Vice-Chairman(A) The Applicant in this Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Sh. Ranbir Singh, Sub-Inspector (SI) in Delhi Police, is assailing the order dated 8.06.2007 of the disciplinary authority (Annex A-3) awarding him the punishment of dismissal from service on the charge of tampering with his certificate of caste and service record by showing him to belong to Scheduled Tribe (ST) category instead of Scheduled Caste (SC) category, thereby taking advantage in his induction in the police and subsequent three promotions and the appellate order dated 1.02.2008, by which his appeal has been dismissed (Annex A-4). The order dated 24.10.2005 initiating disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant (Annex A-1) and the findings of the enquiry officer dated 26.09.2006 (Annex A-2) have also been challenged in this OA.
2. The Applicant was appointed as Constable in Delhi Police on 22.10.1975. With the flux of time he was promoted as Head Constable, ASI and SI in the Delhi Police.
3. A disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the Applicant by an order dated 24.10.2005.
4. The enquiry officer issued a summary of allegations against the Applicant, the gist of which was as follows:
(i) A scrutiny of the service book of the Applicant revealed that in Col. No.3 of page 1, his caste is recorded as Dom and category has been shown as ST;
(ii) A certificate of caste dated 3.09.1969, appended with the Character roll issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi shows that the Applicant is a resident of Majara Dabbas, Chand Pur, Delhi and belongs to Dom Caste, which is shown to belong to ST Category, as SC has been scored off with blue ink;
(iii) A scrutiny of his Fauzi Missal revealed that in the application form filled by the Applicant for appointment in Delhi Police as Constable, he had mentioned his caste as Dom in Col. No. 5 of the application form and at Col. 13, Category of his caste is recorded in black ink as SC, but C in SC has been over-written with blue ink as T, thus showing the category of his Caste as ST;
(iv) The Applicants service particulars received from the DCP of the 4th Battalion of DAP, at the time of his appearing in the test for A list (for promotion as Head Constable) did not mention about the category of his caste, but he qualified the A List under the category of ST;
(v) A scrutiny of his Character Roll revealed further that he had requested on 4.07.1984 for returning of his original caste certificate appended in his Character roll on the ground that he needed it for pursuing higher studies. His Certificate was given to him on 26.07.1984, in the endorsement of which he acknowledged the receipt of his original Secondary School Certificate and SC Certificate. This acknowledgement showed that the Applicant was aware of his original category Caste to be SC, yet he knowingly concealed the facts to gain undue benefits under ST category in Govt. Service. He further gained promotion under ST Category upto the rank of SI (Exe.).
5. The learned counsel for the Applicant has, at the outset, stated that the Respondents have deliberately withheld two crucial documents, which would establish his innocence. First, the result of examination for his appointment as Constable under the Respondents has not been given to him or produced before the Tribunal, as it would clearly show that he qualified in the examination under SC category. Second, the application of the Applicant for the post Head Constable in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), in which he had applied as SC category has also not been shown to him or produced before this Tribunal. It is strenuously urged on the Applicants behalf that his acknowledgement dated 26.07.984, when he received back his Original Caste Certificate, that he had received his SC Certificate, establishes that he considered himself as belonging to SC Category. It is contended that the fact goes strongly in favour of the Applicant, instead of going against him, as attempted to be demonstrated by the Respondents in the summary of allegation or the Charge, which is substantially the same as the former. The Applicant had obtained the copies of Duty and Roll Call Register of Lower Subordinate Staff (Register Number 16) pertaining to his posting in 10th Battalion DAP (Page 98 of the paper book) and at the Police Station Anand Parbat (page 99 of the paper book), in both of which his caste has been recorded as SC. The DD entry regarding the posting at the 10th Battalion, DAP is dated 30.03.2005 and for the Police Station Anand Parbat, it is dated 5.01.2002. It is argued that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Applicant on 24.10.2005 and both of the above mentioned entries are prior to this date. The argument is that there never was an attempt by the Applicant to hide his caste as belonging to the Category of SC. Reference has been made to the following observation of the enquiry officer in his findings:
While receiving the Caste Certificate he mentioned in Hindi that he received his S/C certificate, which shows that he was aware of his Caste Category as S/C and knowingly concealed the facts to gain undue benefits under S/T category upto the rank of SI (Exe.) The contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant is that it could actually prove that up to 26.07.1984, when his Original Certificate of Caste was returned to him, there was no cutting in it and that he correctly recorded his Category of Caste as SC. Advertence has also been made to the statement of PW-1, ASI Jitender Kumar, which is recorded in the enquiry officers findings thus:
It was also stated that SI Ranbir Singh [the Applicant] has never seen/checked his fauji missal during his service. The learned counsel would contend that this reveals how the insinuation in the statement of allegations and charge that he was somehow responsible for the over-writing in blue ink of ST over the originally recorded SC in black ink, is totally inconsistent with the statement of PW-1 that he had never had access to the Fauzi Missal.
6. The learned counsel for the Applicant has also brought to our notice, the following observation of the appellate authority in his order dated 1.02.2008:
It is found correct that the appellant has not officially claimed that he belongs to ST Category candidate.. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that in spite of making the above observation, the appellate authority without any basis of facts reached the conclusion that the Applicant had been intentionally and knowingly availing the benefits of ST Category.
7. Yet another contention on behalf of the Applicant is that blame for his promotions on the erroneous basis of his belonging to ST Category cannot be laid at his door. He had shown his caste as belonging to SC Category in the application for LDCE for list A, a document the Respondents have chosen not to produce, and that he cannot be held responsible if he was promoted as ST candidate in spite of recording his caste correctly. That he was considered as ST Candidate for promotion and promoted as ST Candidate was not known to him as it was never brought to his notice. He vehemently contends that for a mistake attributable totally to the Respondents, the Applicant cannot be punished.
8. It is further argued on the Applicants behalf that it would be a most improbable proposition that the Applicant cut out the word C in SC in the original certificate of Caste, written in black ink, and Write T over it in blue ink, and yet it would be accepted by the officials checking the Certificate of Caste and other certificates, when the Applicant was selected as Constable. The manipulation would be so glaring as to catch the eyes of the authorities at once. He would have been asked, at least, to give an explanation for such cutting in the certificate. The Respondents have illegally withheld his application form for promotion to list A, in which he had applied as SC candidate. The fact that the Applicant has consistently recorded that he belonged to SC Category in the extant documents --the acknowledgement of his original certificate of Caste on 26.07.1984 and the Duty and Roll Call Registers of Lower Subordinates for 10th Battalion DAP and Police Station Anand Parbat showed that he had never concealed his Category of Caste, a fact acknowledged by the appellate authority also. The conclusion of the enquiry officer regarding the Applicants culpability in mutilating his official Certificate of Caste is based totally on surmises, without any foundation of facts.
9. The Respondents, on the other hand, have contested the cause of the Applicant by filing counter affidavit. The learned counsel for the Respondents would contend that in the departmental proceedings a strong probability of wrong doing was sufficient to prove the misconduct of the Charged Officer. Such a probability existed, as has clearly been brought out by the enquiry officer on the basis of records produced during the enquiry and as has been held by the disciplinary authority in his order of punishment.
10. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record placed before us with the assistance of the counsel.
11. The Applicant has never denied the fact that he belongs to SC Category. The documents show that he has consistently recorded his category of caste as SC, as has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs. When he acknowledged the receipt of his Original Caste Certificate in 1984, he stated clearly that he had received his original SC Certificate (page 50 of the paper book). On 5.01.2002 his Caste was recorded as SC in the Register No. 16 of Police Station Anand Parbat (page 99 of the paper book). As late as 30.03.2005 his Caste was recorded as SC in the same register of 10th Battalion DAP. As stated by PW-1 before the enquiry officer, the Applicant had never seen his Fauzi Missal. The crucial documents --- result of Constables examination, when the Applicant was selected as Constable and application form for promotion to Head Constable ---are not available. There is nothing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which would link him to the fact of fudging in the record. No logical argument has been given in the finding of the enquiry officer leading to the conclusion that the Applicant is responsible for manipulation in the record. Merely recording that facts proved the charges clearly that the Applicant has illegally availed the benefits of belonging to ST category in his induction in the Delhi Police as Constable and subsequent promotions, would not suffice. No basis for this has been given. It has nowhere been shown that the Applicant was aware about his promotion under ST Category and yet the disciplinary authority has observed in his order that the Applicant managed to fudge his record and also kept silent about his promotion as ST candidate. There is not a shred of evidence to this effect before the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority is absolutely unjustified in coming to the conclusion that there was preponderance of probability that the Applicant was responsible for manipulation of records. As we have already noted, there is actually a preponderance of improbability in this regard. The Respondents had lost the crucial documents adverted to in the preceding paragraphs, which would have established the Applicants guilt or innocence. The appellate authority has conceded that the Applicant has never officially claimed to belong to ST Category, yet he has never carried it to its logical conclusion. There are blatantly illogical orders without any evidence whatsoever.
12. On the basis of the above discussion, the OA succeeds. The impugned orders at Annex A-3 and A-4 are quashed and set aside. The Applicant should be reinstated in service forthwith. He shall be eligible for all consequential benefits, which would accrue to him under the rules, including payment of wages for the period from his dismissal to his reinstatement, increments if due and promotions if due. The consequential benefits would be made available to the Applicant as early as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) (L.K. Joshi)
Member(J) Vice-Chairman(A)
sd