Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Inspector Ved Bhushan vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 7 March, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.3569 of 2011 Judgment reserved on : 17th February, 2012 Pronounced on : 7th March, 2012 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. (MRS.) VEENA CHHOTRAY, MEMBER (A) Inspector Ved Bhushan, D-1/880, R/o C-I, P.S. Darya Ganj, Delhi. Applicant ( By Shri M. K. Bhardwaj, Advocate ) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Joint Commissioner of Police, Northern Range, MSO Building, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, North-West District, New Delhi. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Ved Bhushan, an Inspector in Delhi Police, the applicant herein, has been visited with the penalty of censure vide order dated 31.01.2011 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, North-West District, Delhi. The said order has since been confirmed in appeal preferred by the applicant by Joint Commissioner of Police, Northern Range, Delhi, vide order dated 16.07.2011. These are the orders that have been challenged by the applicant in this Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. Brief facts of the case culminating into the orders aforesaid reveal that a show cause notice dated 23.03.2010 came to be issued to the applicant alleging that while posted in East District as SHO/Shakarpur (now SHO/Model Town), he committed grave misconduct, negligence, inaction as well as dereliction in the discharge of his official duties, inasmuch as on 09.02.2010, SHO/Mandawali and ACP/Madhu Vihar sent two DD entries No. 34-A dated 03.02.2010 and 22-A dated 07.02.2010, and MLC CR No.9954 along with other relevant papers to him for taking necessary action regarding admission of one minor girl, resident of Chander Vihar, Mandawali in Hedgewar Hospital in a pregnant condition. In her statement, the girl stated that two unknown boys had raped her at Jagat Ram Park, Lakshmi Nagar seven months back, but she did not disclose the incident to her parents. The applicant allegedly did not take any action in the matter, and after eleven days, i.e., on 20.02.2010, only submitted a report to ACP/Preet Vihar to return the report to SHO/Mandawali because the place of occurrence could not be properly verified.
3. The applicant responded to the show cause notice aforesaid vide his reply wherein he mentioned that on 11.02.2010, DD Nos.34-A dated 03.02.2010 and 22-A dated 07.02.2010, MLC CR No.9954 along with report of SHO/Mandawali forwarded by ACP/Madhu Vihar was received as PS Shakarpur vide diary No.470 dated 11.02.2010. ASI Jai Pal Sharma to whom the documents were marked for making enquiry into the same, conducted an enquiry into the matter and verified the facts as mentioned in the complaint from the area. He also made efforts to contact the prosecutrix/complainant, but she was not available. The applicant stated that as there were ambiguities in the statement of the prosecutrix/complainant given to Mandawali police, as soon as she was contacted, W/SI Jyoti enquired the matter from her, but in her statement she nowhere alleged that anything had happened in the area of Shakarpur. Her detailed statement was got recorded by W/SI Jyoti and the outcome of the enquiry was informed to ACP/Preet Vihar on 20.02.2010, which was forwarded to senior officers. The applicant further stated that had the said case been registered at his police station, it could have been fatal to the investigation, and many questions could be raised during trial of the case and the defence would have got opportunity to demolish the prosecution case. In the present case registered at PS Mandawali Fazalpur on the statement of prosecutrix/complainant vide FIR o.89/10 u/s 363/376 IPC, it was nowhere established or stated by her that any incident took place in the area of PS Shakarpur, and all pre-registration investigations were got conducted by Mandawali Police. He further stated that as per orders of DCP/East circulated in such matters, the said case was to be got registered at PS Mandawali Fazalpur, but contrary to this, it was sent to PS Shakarpur. The disciplinary authority, after referring to the facts as mentioned above, and simply mentioning that the applicant had been transferred from East District to Security Unit, and thereafter to North-West District, and, therefore, the matter had been received in the said District for taking further necessary action, observed as follows:
However, I have carefully gone through the relevant file, reply submitted by Inspr. Ved Bhushan Sharma, No.D-1/880, the then SHO/Shakarpur (now SHO/Model Town) as well as heard him in orderly room on 06.01.2011. During orderly room, he had taken the same pleas whatever he had already submitted in the written reply to the show cause notice for censure issued to him. The pleas taken by Inspr. Ved Bhushan Sharma, No.d-1/880, the then SHO/Shakarpur (now SHO/Model Town) in his written as well as oral submissions are not found to be satisfactory. Therefore, the show cause notice issued to Inspr. Ved Bhushan Sharma, No.d-1/880, the then SHO/Shakarpur (now SHO/Model Town) is confirmed. As such his conduct is hereby censured for the above said lapse. The appellate authority, after referring to the basic facts of the case as contained in the notice, did not even mention the contents of the reply given by the applicant. The said authority, however, mentioned that the applicant had requested to submit a supplementary statement in support of his defence, and that in the interest of natural justice he was afforded opportunity to do so, in which he submitted that he had kept the ACP informed at each step and the matter was finally routed through the then DCP/East District. The appellate authority mentioned that even this matter was discussed in the District Crime Review Meeting and as such, all facts were in the notice of senior officers. Just mentioning as to what was said by the applicant in his supplementary statement, the appellate authority proceeded to confirm the order passed by the disciplinary authority, by observing as follows:
I have gone through the records/documents on file and written submissions of the appellant. In absence of any record available to support the fresh submission, it is difficult to believe and take it on record. Even if the same is accepted it makes all concerned accountable for misconduct and the appellant, the then SHO/Mandawali cannot escape from his responsibility.
I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of Disciplinary Authority. Hence, the appeal is rejected.
4. We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. Once, the orders passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities are cryptic and non-speaking and have either only made a mention of the defence projected by the applicant but have given no comments thereon, or not taken into consideration the defence at all, we were inclined to remit this matter to the disciplinary authority to apply its mind, and by a process of reasoning pass an order as to whether the explanation given by the applicant could be accepted or not. However, we find on records that Inspr. Dharam Pal Singh, SHO/Mandawali, was also issued a show cause notice on similar allegations as against the applicant, but his explanation was accepted and he has been let-off. This point was raised by the applicant in his grounds of appeal in para 9, which reads as follows:
9. In the same matter a Show Cause Notice was issued to SHO/Mandawali Fazalpur and later it was filed and only warning was issued to him while the applicants conduct was censured. Even though, the applicant would mention in the ground of appeal as reproduced above that the show cause notice issued to SHO/Mandawali was filed and only a warning was issued to him, but we find from the order dated 14.09.2010 passed in the case of Inspr. Dharma Pal Singh, SHO/Mandawali, placed on records as Annexure A-6, that while accepting the explanation submitted by him, the show cause notice issued to him has simply been filed. There is no discussion of this extremely relevant factor as well by either authority. In reply to the show cause notice, it was the case of the applicant that the matter was wrongly referred to PS/Shakarpur, as the crime, if at all, was committed in an area which would be covered by PS/Mandawali. The applicant has raised the plea aforesaid in para 4.8 of the OA, and the same has not been denied in the corresponding para in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents. In totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, when for the same very incident, SHO/Mandawali has been let-off, we are unable to understand as to how and why the applicant has been inflicted the punishment of censure. We would have yet remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority for considering as to whether the applicant could also be let-off, but we find from the records that the respondents would not appear to be themselves sure as to which of the two police stations should have taken action in the matter. It is no doubt true that action against SHO/Mandawali has been dropped, but in the order passed in his case it is nowhere mentioned that the crime had to be registered at the police station where the applicant was SHO, and not at PS/Mandawali. There is no reply also forthcoming to the assertion made by the applicant throughout, which was also his case before the authorities, that the crime, if at all, had taken place in an area which would be within the jurisdiction of PS/Mandawali, and, therefore, after making all proper investigations and discussing the matter with higher officers, the papers were sent to the said police station. The plea raised by the applicant having not been denied anywhere specifically in the counter reply or during the course of arguments, it would be an exercise in futility to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority.
5. 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.
6. For the reasons mentioned above, this Original Application is allowed. Impugned orders dated 31.01.2011 and 16.07.2011 passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities respectively, are hereby quashed and set aside. In consequence of setting aside of the orders aforesaid, the applicant shall be entitled to consequential reliefs. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/