Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Head Constable Chander Veer vs The Commissioner Of Police on 4 May, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A. No.616/2010 New Delhi this the 4th day of May, 2011 Honble Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Mr. Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) Head Constable Chander Veer S/o Shri Rajbir Singh, R/o B-179, Gali No. 2, Prem Vihar, East Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094. -Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Sachin Chauhan) Versus 1. The Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, M.S.O. Building, New Delhi. 2. The Special Commissioner of Police, Armed Police Through The Commissioner of Police Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, M.S.O. Building, New Delhi. 3. The Dy. Commissioner of Police, VII Bn, DAP, New Delhi Through the Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, M.S.O. Building, New Delhi. -Respondents (By Advocate: Mrs. Sumedha Sharma) O R D E R
Mr. Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) The applicant, a Head Constable in the Delhi Police, has filed this OA consequent to a punishment imposed upon him of forfeiture of 5 years approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in his pay from 4475 to 4050 and has sought the following reliefs:-
to set aside the order dated 03.06.2004, order dated 28.05.2009 imposing on him the aforementioned punishment and the order dated 11.12.2009 (Annexure A-3) of the Appellate Authority which confirmed the above punishment after rejecting his appeal and has also sought setting aside the findings of the enquiry officer dated 05.02.2009.
2. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the OA, are that the applicant had been proceeded against departmentally on the allegation of misappropriation of three cases of illicit liquor and also for making a wrong DD entry in the daily diary with an ulterior motive. The enquiry officer conducted a departmental enquiry holding the charge leveled against the applicant as proved and submitted his findings to the disciplinary authority on 24.02.2005 and after furnishing a copy of the enquiry officers findings to the applicant for submission of his representation, the disciplinary authority imposed the aforementioned punishment. The appeal made against the disciplinary authoritys order was also rejected by the Appellate Authority. The applicant had thereafter approached this Tribunal in OA No. 1451/2007 and vide its order dated 31.01.2008, the Tribunal had passed the following orders:-
In these facts and circumstances, without going into other grounds taken by the applicant, we set aside the orders of the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority as well as the findings of the Enquiry Officer and remit the matter back to disciplinary authority for taking up the proceedings from the stage when defence witnesses are required to be examined in the enquiry, keeping in view the law noticed above and the approval on record to examine the remaining two defence witnesses. Final orders be passed and applicant informed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The applicant shall cooperate in the finalization of enquiry and would be at liberty on receipt of final orders to avail departmental remedy. The OA is disposed of as above. No costs.
In pursuance of the above order, the said departmental enquiry was re-initiated from the stage of examination of defence witnesses and the enquiry officer submitted his findings in the fresh D.E. against the applicant on 05.02.2009 concluding that the charge served upon the applicant stands proved. The applicant submitted his representation against these findings after which the Disciplinary Authority awarded the punishment of forfeiture of 5 years approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in his pay. The appeal preferred against this to the appellate authority was rejected vide its order dated 11.12.2009. The challenge to the orders mentioned above, has been made on various grounds mentioned at para-5 of the OA.
3. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the applicant brought to our notice that the order of the Disciplinary Authority whereby the punishment has been imposed is a non-speaking and mechanical order, which has not dealt with any of the submissions raised by him in reply to the findings of the enquiry officer as communicated to him.
We notice that, tentatively agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority had supplied a copy of the enquiry officers findings to the applicant on 06.09.2009 (vide his letter at Annexure A-4) giving him 15 days time to make a representation/submission with regard to the findings. The applicant gave a detailed reply to the above letter and made a large number of submissions (Sl No. 1 to 14 at Annexure A-5) with regard to the findings of the enquiry officer. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority has passed order dated 28.05.2009 imposing the penalty of forfeiture of 5 years approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in his pay (Annexure A-2).
4. A perusal of the above order shows that it is a non-speaking, non-reasoned order. In the order, the Disciplinary Authority has narrated the sequence of events right from the stage of initiation of the departmental enquiry and though he has taken note of the submissions of the applicant in his representation against the findings of the enquiry officer, he has not dealt with any of these submissions nor has he given any reasons for rejecting the same. A copy of the relevant portion of the order is extracted below:-
Inspr. O.P. Arora, E.O/VII Bn. DAP submitted his findings in the departmental enquiry initiated against HC Chander Veer Singh No.173/E (Now 5058/DAP) on 05.02.2009 in which it is, mentioned that both DWs namely Const Nathu Ram, No. 2620/DAP and Pappu Tyagi, No.2293/Sec. gave in writing that they did not want to appear as DW, in the D.E. They were again called to join the DE proceedings DW Const. Pappu again gave in writing in the presence of the charged official that he did not want to appear as DW in the D.E. The second DW did not join the D.E. proceedings Inspr. O.P. Arora, E.O/VII Bn. DAP concluded that chararge served upon HC Chander Veer Singh, No. 173/E (Now 5058/DAP) stands proved.
HC Chander Veer Singh, No. 173/E (Now 5058/DAP) Submitted his representation against the findings in which it is mentioned that Applicant was dealt departmentally on the allegations of misappropriating the three parties of illicit liquor and further making wrong DD entry in the daily dairy with an ulterior motive.
Enquiry Officer did not believe the applicants defence pleas taken in the applicants submission made to him in reply to the findings. If enquiry officer was not going to believe the defence pleas, he should have assigned proper reasons in disbelieving and rebutting each of applicants pleas taken in applicants statements.
There is no recovery or any seizure memo in respect of the 15 parties of illicit liquor but still the charge of misappropriation of 3 parties of liquor by applicant has been proved.
There is no case of misconduct. There is no evidence to come to the conclusion that cutting in the DD entry has been done by the applicant or not and further there is no evidence to come to the conclusion that 15 parties of liquor have been seized and handed over to the applicant.
Enquiry Officer did not give notices to appear in the departmental enquiry in respect of defence witnesses Constable Pappu Tyagi and Constable Nathu Ram to the applicant so that the applicant could personally go to these two witnesses and explain their requirement in the departmental enquiry.
The defaulter was heard in O.R. on 24.04.2009 and he verbally explained his written pleas as mentioned above. I have carefully gone through the findings of the E.O., Statements of PWs and other relevant documents on D.E. file. After going into complete facts of the matter and pleas of the defaulter as put-forth in the O.R. the defaulter does not deserve to be pardoned and forfeiture of 05 (five) years approved service should meet the ends of justice in this matter. Therefore, I Arun Kampani, Deputy Commissioner of Police, VII Bn. DAP, Delhi order that 05(five) years approved service of HC Chander Veer Singh, No. 5058/DAP be forfeited permanently entailing proportionate reduction in his pay.
5. There is a plethora of law to the effect that an order granted by a quasi judicial/administrative authority must indicate the reasons in support of the view taken/arrived at. It is then only that an employee adversely affected thereby would be able to effectively challenge the same.
In C.V. Mohan Kumar v. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Ors. 2008 (2) SLJ (CAT) 104 it has been held that disciplinary authority/appellate authority must consider all the points raised by the applicant.
The Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 held that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimizes chances of arbitrariness.
The Honble Apex Court also in a very recent judgment in Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others (2010) 9 SCC 496 decided on September 8, 2010 has again emphasized that the giving of reasons is an indispensable a component of the decision making process and that recording of reasons in support of each order of a quasi judicial authority or even an administrative authority must be insisted upon as it is meant to serve the wider principle that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done.
6. Keeping in view the above judicial pronouncements, we have no hesitation in holding that the order of the Disciplinary Authority is a totally non-speaking order and is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed. The Appellate Authoritys order would also resultantly need to be quashed.
6.1. During arguments the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Disciplinary Authoritys order cannot be considered to be a bald, non-speaking order as it extends to over three pages and that the Disciplinary Authoritys statement after recording of the sequence of events and the submissions of the applicant that I have carefully gone through the findings of the E.O., Statements of PWs and other relevant documents on D.E. file. After going into complete facts of the matter and pleas of the defaulter as put-forth in the O.R., the defaulter does not deserve to be pardoned is sufficient to show application of mind on the part of the Disciplinary Authority. We, however, do not agree. The Disciplinary Authority has merely narrated the sequence of events and made a mention of the submissions of the applicant in his reply to the Enquiry Officers findings, but has then passed a cryptic order rejecting the same without recording any reasons for rejection of these submissions, which renders the order bad in law. As already observed above, communication of the reasons for rejection of a persons submissions is necessary to enable him to effectively challenge the same.
7. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authoritys order dated 28.05.2009 and also the Appellate Authoritys order dated 11.123.2009 are quashed and the case is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh reasoned order dealing with each issue raised by the applicant in his reply to the Enquiry Officers findings. The applicant shall have the right to submit an appeal against the fresh order passed, which would then be dealt with appropriately by the Appellate Authority also.
8. The OA shall stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions.
9. No costs.
(Shailendra Pandey) ( M.L. Chauhan)
Member (A) Member (J)
cc.