Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Inspector Puran Singh No. D-1/137 vs Govt. Of Nctd on 15 April, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. 1641/2007
New Delhi this the 15th day of April, 2009
Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J)
Honble Dr. R.C. Panda, Member (A)
Inspector Puran Singh No. D-1/137,
S/o Shri Khanda Singh,
R/o Qtr No. B-33, Moti Bagh-I,
New Delhi. Applicant.
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan)
VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCTD,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
2. The Joint Commissioner of Police,
Armed Police,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi. Respondents.
(By Advocate Shri H.K. Gangwani)
O R D E R
Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (j).
The applicant was working as Inspector in the Delhi Police. By Annexure A-1 order, dated 04.04.2006, the competent authority had dismissed him in exercise of powers conferred on him, under claue (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. The officer was on suspension from 19.12.2003. While going through Anenxure A-1, it is evident that serious allegations were there against the applicant. He was alleged to be working as hand in glove with Mr. Abdul Karim Telgi, who operated as leader of a gang of fake stamps makers during 1999-2001.
2. There are several instances highlighted in the order about the complicity of the applicant, and as to how he has become undesirable for police services. Applicant is alleged to have accepted bribe running to lakhs; he had been intimidating persons who stood in his way; he was making a mockery of the process of recovery. On the whole, he was utilizing opportunity of investigation to wreck vengeance of persons who had been nominated by Mr. Telgi as belonging to his opposite camp. The disciplinary authority, in a stern language, has thus condemned him.
3. The Joint Commissioner had finally come to a conclusion that in view of the peculiar facts of the case, holding of an inquiry was not practicable. The authority had only option to initiate action, under the special powers conferred on him by the Constitution. The order narrated that witnesses have been victimized by the inspector concerned. They were tormented and were instilled with fear that they will be implicated in other cases. Therefore, the authority had concluded by recording that the applicant is a dangerous police officer. Investigation revealed about the applicant moving about with armed staff obtaining signatures from witnesses including fabrication of documents. There were sufficient circumstances for him to hold that the applicant deserved to be dismissed from service.
4. The appeal filed from the order had been rejected by Annexure A-2. These orders are under challenge.
5. Mr. Chauhan, counsel appearing on behalf of the applciant, submits that the memos as above picturize his client as a hardcore criminal and this circumstance is utilized as an opportunity to get round an obligation to hold an inquiry. He submits that right to have an inquiry, is a statutory right, and unless there are convincing circumstances to show that an inquiry is impossible to be carried out, recourse to the shortcut method cannot be possible to be appreciated. According to Mr. Chauhan, the position is well settled. He had drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court starting with Union of India and Anr. Vs. Tulsiram Patel (1985 (2) SLR 576), and the latest decision, reported as 2008 (2) SCC (L&S) 140 (Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors). Advertence was made to a number of other decisions, including those rendered by the Administrative Tribunal, in OA 1515/2001 (Full Bench), as well as OA 1917/2006, where all the relevant provisions had been scanned. According to Mr. Chauhan, already certain principles have been spelt out. But none of them really has been pleaded or proved by the respondents herein to salvage the situation. Disciplinary proceedings are not to be dispensed with lightly or for the mere inconvenience thereof. Such a procedure is not at all to be adopted, when it is possible to conclude that there might be evidence available. Reasons for not holding an inquiry should be established before the court to convince that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry, when such action is challenged. The subjective satisfaction of the employer was irrelevant. Narration of adverse circumstances alone could not have been sufficient enough for avoiding an inquiry. Therefore, the orders were unsustainable.
6. It is further submitted that apart from certain statements, there is nothing to indicate that any witnesses who possibly would have given evidence against the applicant have been threatened. Even on the allegations as referred to in Annexure A-I, police officers could have acted as witnesses and the theory of coercion or threat would not have any relevance at least in such cases. As an officer under suspension, the applicant was helpless, and the imaginary situations could not have been permitted to be highlighted, to deny the constitutional right to a civil servant, it was contended.
7. Mr. Gangwani, appearing on behalf of the respondents, had referred to the counter filed and submits that the notoriety of the officer concerned was so grave that the Department had considered all pros and cons before coming to a conclusion as arrived at. The muscle power employed and the sinister manner in which the applicant operated had instilled fear on all persons surrounding him and no material evidence would have been possible to be gathered in case departmental inquiry was held. At the same time, his presence could not have been tolerated. The cumulative circumstance available against the applicant, therefore, justified summary action, in the form of Annexure A-1 and it could not have been possible to be characterized as arbitrary.
8. However, the law is clear on the subject as explained by the Honble Supreme Court and also recorded in the earlier decisions of this Tribunal, which, we are obliged to follow. Perhaps, the applicant might have given an impression to others that he was invincible or that he had extraordinary powers under his command, but the Department should not be helpless even in the face of such threats. Mr. Chauhan points out that when police officers could have given evidence against him. If, as a matter of fact, there were lapses on his side, Department should not have concluded that an inquiry would not have yielded any results. The circumstances in which an inquiry could be dispensed with have been fully explained and on the facts presented before us we are not prepared to hold that it was not practicably possible to hold the inquiry against the applicant after issuing him a formal charge sheet.
9. We also have to notice that the officer was on suspension running to years and the plea that notwithstanding the passage of years he was wielding powers and authority to intimidate witnesses, which would have resulted in a situation where evidence would not have been possible to be collected is difficult to accept. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders.
10. The applicant will be deemed as on suspension from this day, in continuity of the earlier suspension. We are told that criminal proceedings are at the final stages in respect of the FIRs registered against the applicant. Notwithstanding it will be within the powers and jurisdiction of the Department to chargesheet him under the D&A Rules, continue and complete the proceedings to their logical end.
11. In respect of the period from the date of his dismissal upto this day it will depend upon the final outcome of the criminal proceedings pending or the Disciplinary Proceedings as might be taken. The applicant will be entitled to subsistence allowance from this day. But taking note of the factual scenario, periodical revision of suspension need not be exercised (except in the matter of payment) as the suspension is introduced as arising from our orders. O.A. is disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs.
(R.C. Panda) (M Ramachandran)
Member (A) Vice Chairman (J)
`SRD