Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Department vs Smt. Kamla Bhatt on 5 February, 2011

                                                      Department Vs Smt. Kamla Bhatt

                IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR,
         ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE­04, NORTH EAST, KKD, DELHI


I. D. No. 02402C0385142009

DE No. 1/2010
Department Vs Kamla Bhatt


5.2.2011

                                  Inquiry Report

   1.

The facts which resulted in initiating the present inquiry are that Sh. Brijesh Adnani, Ahlmad in the court of Ms. Poonam A. Bamba, Ld. ADJ made a complaint to the Ld. Presiding Officer stating that he had sent seven files to record room (sessions) on 20.01.07 through Smt Kamla Bhatt, Dak Peon. However, Sh. B.S. Rawat, Mauza Clerk of record room (sessions) acknowledged the receipt of only six files. It is stated in this complaint (Ex. PW3/A) that Sh. B.S. Rawat stated that Dak Peon Smt Kamla Bhatt had left these files on the other table in record room and that some other officials might have placed the files in the relevant bastas. However on checking the concerned basta, one file i.e. missing file was not found. It is stated that none of the seven files were entered in the wapsi register of the record room.

Department Vs Smt. Kamla Bhatt

2. In this complaint it is stated that the file has not been traced nor the signature on the receipt of the file have been given by Sh. B.S. Rawat. Sh. Brijesh Adnani, the Ahlmad of Ms. Poonam A. Bamba requested the Ld. Presiding Officer to seek explanation from Ms. Kamla Bhatt and Sh. B.S. Rawat in this regard. Ms. Poonam A. Bamba, Ld. ADJ forwarded this letter of her Ahlmad to Ld. District Judge vide her letter Ex. PW7/A informing about the missing of file LAC No. 129/00 titled as Vijay Kumar Gupta Vs Union Of India.

3. The office of Ld. District Judge sought explanation from Sh. B.S. Rawat, Mauza Clerk, Record Room Sessions vide his letter Ex. PW5/A.

4. Sh. B.S. Rawat in his reply Ex. PW5/A stated that Smt Kamla Bhatt, Dak Peon had come on 20.01.07 at about 4.00 pm for obtaining signatures of seven wapsi files and that when he asked as to whom she had handed over these files, she told that she had left these filed at the table of other portion of record room. He asked her to show those files, but she could not trace them, however after searching for some time, she brought six files, but the file bearing LAC No. 129/00 was not among those files therefore he only gave the receipt of six files. It was requested by Sh. B.S. Rawat that Ms. Kamla Bhatt, Dak Peon of Ms. Poonam A. Bamba, Ld. ADJ may be asked about this missing DE No. 1/2010 Page 2 / 20 Department Vs Smt. Kamla Bhatt file.

5. The fact finding inquiry was conducted by Ms. Poonam A. Bamba, Ld. ADJ in which she recorded the statements of various witnesses. Thereafter a separate memorandums dated 02.02.09 were issued to both delinquents and Sh. B.S. Rawat filed reply to this memorandum.

6. The articles of charge against both the delinquents are as under:

Statement of Articles of Charge framed against Ms. Kamla Bhatt, Dak Peon That Ms. Kamla Bhatt while working as Dak Peon in the court of Ms. Poonam A. Bamba, Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi during the year 2007, seven files duly handed over to her by Sh. Brijesh Adnani, Ahlmad of the said court for delivering the same in record room (sessions) but she did not hand over the files to wapsi clerk/any other official of the record room (sessions), rather, she left the same unattended at inappropriate place in record room, resulting loss of one Judicial Case File No. LAC 129/00 titled as Vijay Kumar Gupta Vs UOI dated of decision 27.01.01 and Goshwara No. 170 out of seven files.

Being a Dak Peon, it was primary duty of Ms. Kamla Bhatt to hand over the files to Wapsi Clerk/any other official DE No. 1/2010 Page 3 / 20 Department Vs Smt. Kamla Bhatt of record room and obtain signature from concerned clerk of all files, which she failed to do so.

The above said act on the part of Ms. Kamla Bhatt, Dak Peon amounts to gross negligence, carelessness and lack of devotion to duty which constitutes misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 thereby rendering herself liable for disciplinary action under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE DELHI STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SH. B.S. RAWAT, ASST./MAUZA CLERK.

That Sh. B.S. Rawat, Asst./Mauza Clerk while posted in the Record Room (Sessioins), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi during the year 2007, did not maintain Wapsi Register for the purpose of checking and making entry of the files in wapsi register received from courts before placing the same in concerned bastas.

Under Rule 6 part A­II of Chapter 16, Delhi High Courts Rules, Wapsi Register in Record Room is required to be maintained by the record keeper.

That memo dated 22.03.07 was issued to Sh. B.S. Rawat, Asst./Mauza DE No. 1/2010 Page 4 / 20 Department Vs Smt. Kamla Bhatt Clerk by the Branch Incharge, Vigilence, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to which he submitte4d reply dated 26.07.07.

Being a Mauza Clerk it was primary duty of Sh. B.S. Rawat, Asst. to maintain Wapsi Register for the purpose of checking and making entry of the files in wapsi register received from the courts before placing the same in concerned bastas, which he failed to do so.

That above said act on the part of Sh. B.S. Rawat, Asst./Mauza Clerk amounts to gross negligence, carelessness and lack of devotion to duty which constitutes misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 thereby rendering himself liable for disciplinary action under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE DELHI

7. In order to prove its case the department examined following witnesses :­ PW1 Sh. Uma Shankar, Assistant Ahlmad. He proved the relevant entries in Wapsi register of the court of Ms Poonam A Bamba, Ld. ADJ. The copy of the same is Ex.PW1/A. PW2 Sh. Vikas Kumar, the LDC. He testified that he was posted as Assistant Ahlmad in the court of Ms Poonam A. Bamba, Ld. ADJ and was working under Sh. Brijesh Andani, the DE No. 1/2010 Page 5 / 20 Department Vs Smt. Kamla Bhatt Ahlmad. He testified that on 20.1.2007, seven files were entered in Wapsi register and handed over to delinquent Smt. Kamla Bhatt, the Dak Peon to return the same to Record Room (Sessions). He testified that Smt. Kamla Bhatt had received all the seven files along with the Wapsi register after counting the same in his presence. He further stated that when he went to collect the Wapsi register from Record Room, Sh. B. S. Rawat, the mauza clerk, put his signature in acknowledgment on receipt of only six files in the Wapsi register. In cross examination, he denied that all seven files were not handed over to Smt. Kamla Bhatt. He further denied that one of the missing file was kept with him and the same was sent to Record Room by him later on. This witness further stated that when he made repeated visits, only then Sh. B. S. Rawat, the delinquent, the concerned clerk of Record Room Sessions gave them receiving of six files.

In cross examination on behalf of Sh. B. S. Rawat, the delinquent, PW2 stated that the Sh. Brijesh Andani had made the entries of files in Wapsi register on 20.1.2007 itself and that he (PW2) had gone to Record Room to collect the Wapsi register after 2 or 3 days. He further stated that although the signature of Sh. B. S. Rawat are of dated 20.1.2007 on the Wapsi register but the same were made after 3 or 4 days. He clarified that the DE No. 1/2010 Page 6 / 20 Department Vs Smt. Kamla Bhatt signature of Sh. B. S. Rawat were ante dated. PW2 further clarifies that usually the mauza clerk do not give the signatures on the same date as they have to check the files, takes sometime. Therefore as per practice the mauza clerk gives the ante dated signatures.

PW3 Sh. Brijesh Andani, the UDC. He testified that he was posted in the courtof Ms Poonam A. Bamba, Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari and at that time Smt. Kamla Bhatt was working as Dak Peon in her court. On 20.1.2007 he sent seven files to Record Room (Sessions) mentioned at Serial No. 1 to 7 (Ex.PW1/A) through Smt. Kamla Bhatt Dak Peon. When she came to collect the Dak, these files were entered into Wapsi register. She collected seven files after counting the same in presence of Sh. Vikas Kumar, the assistant ahlamd. However out of these seven files, the signatures of dealing clerk (i.e. the signatures of Sh. B. S. Rawat the delinquent herein) were only on six files. He made inquiry from the dealing clerk Sh. B. S. Rawat as to why he has not given signatures on 7th file, which was mentioned at serial no.4 in the Wapsi register Ex.PW1/A, Sh. B. S. Rawat told that he has not received any file. On the request of PW3, Sh. B. S. Rawat checked all the seven files in the concerned bastas of the Record Room. Six files were found in the bastas but one file (mentioned at serial no.4) was found missing.

Department Vs Smt. Kamla Bhatt PW3 further testified that when he made inquires about the missing file from Sh. B. S. Rawat, he told that he gave receiving on only those files, which were received by him.

In cross examination by Smt. Kamla Bhatt, this witness testifies that the register in which Wapsi files were handed over was not returned back on the same date. He stated that normally the Wapsi register never returned back on the same date. Because the officials of Record Room first check the paging of the files and thereafter they give the receiving after complete checking of such files. He further testified that in the present case also the Wapsi register came back after 2 or 3 days. He testified that he had given all the seven files to Smt. Kamla Bhatt, who took the same after putting them in Wapsi register. He further stated that for many days the Wapsi register did not return back to the court, therefore he along with assistant ahlmad went to Record Room. Till then Sh. B. S. Rawat had not given the receiving on the Wapsi register on the pretext that he would give receiving of only those files, which had been received by him.

This witness further stated that when they visited the Record Room earlier, Sh. B. S. Rawat had stated that he had not received any file. Even these files were not found entered in the register of Record Room. However when the relevant bastas DE No. 1/2010 Page 8 / 20 Department Vs Smt. Kamla Bhatt were checked for the concerned year, these files were found in the appropriate bastas meant for particular month though the file in question was found missing. He stated that Sh. B. S. Rawat gave receiving only those six files, which were found in the concerned bastas.

PW4 Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta, the Ex. Superintendent of Copying Agency appeared but it was found that he was not the relevant witness and was discharged.

PW5 Sh. Jagvinder Singh, LDC Vigilance Branch, Tis Haari. He testified that he proved a notice Ex.PW5/A issued by Sh. S. K. Arora, Branch Incharge to the Incharge of Record Room.

PW6 Sh. D. N. Khatri, Retired Branch Incharge, Record Room Civil. He testified that on return of any file in the Record Room, the Wapsi clerk or mauza clerk used to receive the file after making proper entry of the same in the Wapsi register. Then Wapsi clerk used to hand over the same to mauza clerk and obtained his signatures on his register. After that mauza clerk also made entry in the Wapsi register.

PW7 Ms Poonam A. Bamba, Ld. ADJ testified that her ahlmad Sh. Brijesh Andani informed about a missing file in his letter Ex.PW3/A, which was forwarded by her to Ld. District Judge. She also conducted a Fact Finding Inquiry.

Department Vs Smt. Kamla Bhatt PW8 Sh. Ghanshyam Dass Gupta, Retired Superintendent. He testified that he was working as Branch Incharge, Record Room Sessions since 3.11.2006 to 26.7.2007. On returned of any file in the Record Room, the Wapsi clerk checks the files according to index affixed outside the file. He testified that it is not possibile for Wapsi clerk to give the receipt immediately on receiving the file because it takes time to verify pages etc. If Wapsi clerk is busy in some other work, he might ask Dak Peon to collect the Wapsi register on next date. On verifying the files, the Wapsi clerk entries the files in the Wapsi register and hands over to mauza clerk on receipt of the said files. Mauza clerk then places the files at the relevant mauzas. He further testified that in Record Room Sessions Wapsi register was not being maintained by the Wapsi clerk.

PW9 Sh. Rakesh, LDC, Mauza Clerk, Record Room Civil. He testified that PW10 Ms Rama Sharma, Assistant, Record Room Civil brought the copies of Wapsi register w.e.f. 18.1.2008, which are Ex.PW10/A­1 to A­3.

PW11 Sh. Satender Singh Gosai, Junior Judicial Assistant Delhi High Court. He brought the mauza Wapsi register, copies of which are Ex.PW11/1­A to A3.

8. Since the delinquents wanted themselves as witnesses, DE No. 1/2010 Page 10 / 20 Department Vs Smt. Kamla Bhatt therefore there was no need to question them on the circumstances appearing against them.

9. The delinquent examined herself as DW1. She testified that when she was working as Dak Peon in the year 2007, four courts including the court of Ms Poonam A. Bamba, Ld. ADJ was assigned to her. In regular routine work she took Dak from the court of Ms Poonam A. Bamba on 20.1.2007. On that date, ahlmad of the said court handed over to her some Dak along with Wapsi register and asked her to delivery the Wapsi files in the Record Room Sessions. She testified that in Wapsi register, there was entry of seven files but one file was taken back by the ahlmad. He told her that there is some work, which is still required to be done in the file, which was entered in serial no.4 in Wapsi register and asked her that he or his assistant ahlmad will hand over the same to Record Room later on. She testified that she took all the remaining six files along with Wapsi register and handed over the same in the Record Room Sessions. When she asked Sh. B. S. Rawat to give receiving of those files, he asked her to keep those files on the table and to come later on as he will give the receiving of those files after verifying the same. She testified that she came back to the court and conveyed the message to ahlamd that Sh. B. S. Rawat has not given the receiving and that he asked to collect the Wapsi DE No. 1/2010 Page 11 / 20 Department Vs Smt. Kamla Bhatt register later on after verifying the files. She stated that she came to know about the missing file after 15­20 days when ahlmad informed her about the missing file. Delinquent stated that she told the ahlmad that he himself had kept the file. Delinquent Smt. Kamla Bhatt did not examine any other witness.

10. Delinquent Sh. B. S. Rawat examined following witnesses in his favour :­ DW2 Naresh Kumar, Mauza Clerk, Record Room (Sessions), Tis Hazari. He testified that in January 2007, files for the period of 2004 to 2006 in the Record Room Civil and for the period of the year 1993 and year 2003 to 2006, were shited from Record Room no. 220 to Record Room no.45 at ground floor. No extra staff was provided during the said shifting and in the said period the Wapsi register could not be maintained due to over burden of shifting work but all the files received from the court/copying agency were placed at appropriate mauka instantly after receiving. He testified that all the shifting work was being undertaken by Sh. B. S. Rawat, the delinquent official.

DW3 is Sh. B. S. Rawat, the delinquent himself. He testified that in the year 2007, he was mauza clerk in Record Room Session, Tis Hazari. During that period the record shifting DE No. 1/2010 Page 12 / 20 Department Vs Smt. Kamla Bhatt work was being done and records of the year 2004 to 2006 were being shifted from Record Room No. 220 (second floor, Easter Wing) to Room No. 45 (ground floor Western Wing). He testified that shifting work was going on under his supervision. He was also arranging and locating the files in compactors in systematic manner and the same was time consuming. Due to this shifting work the regular work, which was multi dealing on the same seat were reduced to single dealing to ensure the placing the record promptly at the proper maukas. The staff was also short during the relevant time and that he was never given any training regarding maintaining and managements of records.

He testified that on 20.1.2007 he received six files, which was lying in Wapsi register of the court of Ms Poonam A. Bamba, Ld. ADJ. One file was not available in the said Wapsi register. He informed this fact to Sh. Vikas, the assistant ahlmad of the court of Ms Poonam A. Bamba. He stated that six received files were promptly put in concerned bastas at appropriate location.

In cross examination by the presenting officer, he stated that shifting of Record Room started from the year 2006 upto March 2007. Prior to this period, he was managing Wapsi register. He denied that on 20.1.2007 he had received seven files from the court of Ms Poonam A. Bamba, Ld. ADJ.

Department Vs Smt. Kamla Bhatt In cross examination on behalf of Smt. Kamla Bhatt, DW3 denied the suggestion that Sh. Vikas, the assistant ahlmad, had delivered the seventh file directly to him i.e. delinquent Sh. B. S. Rawat.

11. Evidence against Ms Kamla Bhatt, Dak Peon Delinquent Ms Kamla Bhatt has been charged with the allegations that Sh. Brijesh Andani Ahlmad of the Court of Ms Poonam A. Bamba, Ld. ADJ had handed over the seven files duly entered in Wapsi register to Ms Kamla Bhatt for delivering the same in Record Room Session but she left the same unattended in the Record Room resulting in loss of one judicial file no. LAC­129/2000, date of decision 27.1.2011, Goshwara No. 170.

12. During the fact finding inquiry Ms Kamla Bhatt, the delinquent, in her statement Ex.PW7/B, had taken a stand that Sh. Brijesh Andani had handed over to her only six files along with Wapsi register. She did not state in this statement that Sh. Brijesh Andani had taken back one file, which is stated to be lost. It is pertinent to note that the Wapsi register (photo copy of relevant portion of which is Ex.PW1/A) clearly mentions seven files including the missing file at serial no.4. When Ms Kamla Bhatt received these files, it was her duty to tally the same with the Wapsi register, which she was supposed to take to the Record Room along with files. Delinquent official DE No. 1/2010 Page 14 / 20 Department Vs Smt. Kamla Bhatt Ms Kamla Bhatt (DW1) has stated in her testimony that in Wapsi register there was entry of seven files but one file was taken back by the ahlmad as he told that some work was remained to be done in the said file and told her that he or assistant ahlmad would hand over the said file to Record Room later on. This stand is clearly an afterthought. PW2 Sh. Vikas Kumar, the assistant ahlmad, and PW3 Sh. Brijesh Andani, the ahlmad, have specifically stated that all the seven files duly entered in the Wapsi register along with the said register was handed over to Ms Kamla Bhatt. In these circumstances the version of Ms Kamla Bhatt that the file was taken back by the ahlmad is not worthy of credence rather it is an afterthought. Therefore it is clear that the file was in custody of Ms Kamla Bhatt and she is responsible for missing of the file in question. Hence the charge against her stands proved.

13. Evidence against delinquent Sh. B. S. Rawat.

As per the Statement of Articles, the charge against Sh. B. S. Rawat, the mauza clerk, posted in Record Room Sessions is that during the year 2007, he did not maintain Wapsi register for the purpose of checking and making entries of the files in the Wapsi register received from the courts before placing the same in concerned bastas and thereby did not comply with Rule 6 Part A­1 Chapter 16 of Part F of Delhi High Court. This fact had DE No. 1/2010 Page 15 / 20 Department Vs Smt. Kamla Bhatt been admitted by the delinquent but he has taken the defence that in the year 2007, there was a shifting of Record Room and the files were being shifted from Record Room No.220, Second Floor, Easter Wing to Record Room No.45, Ground Floor, Western Wing and that shifting work was going under his supervision. Further he had also to arrange and place the files and bundles of files in compactors in systematic manner, which was a time consuming job. He stated that the staff was also short at that time and he was never given any training regarding maintaining and managing the records. It is stated that this is the reason that Wapsi register could not be maintained by him. DW1 Sh. Naresh Kumar, mauza clerk, also supported this fact but he stated that although Wapsi register could not be maintained but all the files received from the court/copy agency were placed at appropriate mauka instantly after receiving all the said files. He testified that all the shifting work was being done by Sh. B. S. Rawat. As per Rule 6 Part A­1 Chapter 16 of Part F of Delhi High Court Rules enjoin upon a Wapsi clerk to maintain a register in which he should enter the files received in Record Room by him. Therefore the charge against Sh. B. S. Rawat, the delinquent, stands proved because he did not maintain a Wapsi register. However evidence on record also shows that work load upon him was extraordinary. Not only he DE No. 1/2010 Page 16 / 20 Department Vs Smt. Kamla Bhatt was acting as a mauza clerk but also was looking after the work of Wapsi clerk. Normally these two jobs are allotted to different clerks except in circumstances when the work load is quite less. As per Rule 7 Chapter 16(A)(II), Part F of Delhi High Court Rules, each office shall have a responsible dispatcher and receiver of records. In Record Room, the job of the Wapsi register itself is quite heavy and in Tis Hazari it is practically not possible for one person to handle the job of mauza clerk as well as of the Wapsi clerk. The evidence of record shows that the responsibility of shifting of the Record Room from Second Floor, Eastern Wing to the Ground Floor of Western Wing was itself was very onerous and this was being done under the supervision of Sh. B. S. Rawat. Therefore these circumstances are also worthy of consideration.

14. In nutshell the charges against both the delinquents stand proved. The present report along with the entire record be placed before Ld. District Judge­1 & Sessions Judge through Ld. District Judge­VII, North East District, KKD, Delhi.

(VINOD KUMAR) Inquiry Officer/5.2.2011 A few suggestions It is most respectfully submitted that following irregularities have been seen in transmission of the records :­

1. The Dak Peons do not give any receiving of the DE No. 1/2010 Page 17 / 20 Department Vs Smt. Kamla Bhatt files/records/registers taken by them from the ahlmads. Therefore if any record or file is lost by a Dak Peon, the ahlmad does not have any proof to show that he had actually delivered the files/records/registers to the Dak Peons.

2. It has been seen that when ahlmads send the files to the record rooms along with Wapsi register, the concerned clerk of the record room does not give immediate receipt acknowledging the arrival of the files. This omission is done on the pretext that the record room clerk would give signatures as a token of receipt of the files only after checking the same. This situation creates an unacceptable disorder in transmission of the files. The normal scene in the record rooms is that the files sent by the ahlmad along with Wapsi register are left lying unattended in the record rooms.

3. In view of the above scenario, it is difficult to find out as to whether the file has been lost by the ahlmad or by the Dak Peon or it has been lost from the record room.

4. Such situation has arisen because the staff does not know the rules of transmission of records. Therefore in Delhi District Courts the entire work of transmitting the records is being performed "in good faith" rather than on rules. I therefore make following recommendations:­

1. Every Dak Peon must give a receipt by putting his/her full signatures in a appropriate register maintained by the ahlmad in DE No. 1/2010 Page 18 / 20 Department Vs Smt. Kamla Bhatt token of having received the files/records etc. and thereafter he/she must get the signatures of record clerk or the staff receiving such files/records in token of having delivered the said records.

2. The file must be transmitted in accordance with Rule 5­A Chapter 16 (Part A­II) of Part F of Delhi High Court Rules. As per this rule the files along with the court register should be sent along with a challan in duplicate form (form of which has been given under the Rule 7). The court registers should be immediately returned after being signed by the record room clerk receiving the records. One copy of challan will be returned later, after entry of Goshwara number with the date against each record and signature in full of record room clerk. The other copy of challan would be retained by the record room staff.

This means that record room clerk would receive the unchecked files immediately and give his signatures in token thereof. However later on he may check the files and he may ask the ahlmad to remove the objection before giving Goshwara number.

3. Since each court complex is having its own record rooms, it would be appropriate that the ahlmad/assistant ahlmad himself takes the files record rooms, instead of sending it DE No. 1/2010 Page 19 / 20 Department Vs Smt. Kamla Bhatt through Dak Peon

4. Since the duties of receiving and dispatching the files in the record rooms is quite heavy, it is recommended that each record room must have a responsible dispatcher and receiver of judicial record exclusively for this purpose as per the Rule 7 Chaper 16 (Part A­II) of Part F of Delhi High Court Rules.

5. The shifting of record rooms should be done only in rarest of rare cases. If situation requires such shifting, it should be done after providing extra staff so that the regular work of record room does not suffer.

It is most respectfully submitted that these recommendations may be examined and appropriate instructions may be issued so that the work of transmission of records is executed in accordance with rules and not in accordance with the convenience of staff. I may point out that if the records are allowed to be transmitted in the manner as prevalent, it might result in a wrong person having been held guilty for the error of some other official.

(VINOD KUMAR) Inquiry Officer/5.2.2011 DE No. 1/2010 Page 20 / 20