Delhi High Court
Maneesh Kumar vs Commissioner Of Police & Anr. on 16 September, 2014
Author: Vipin Sanghi
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Vipin Sanghi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 16.09.2014
% W.P.(C.) No. 2551/2014
MANEESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj and Mr. Shekhar
Kumar, Advocates
versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amiet Andlay, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. The petitioner assails the order dated 12.02.2014 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, 'the
Tribunal') in O.A. No. 4248/2012, as well as the order of termination dated
03.01.2012 and the order dated 17.08.2012 rejecting the petitioner's
representation, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The petitioner had been appointed in the Delhi Police as a Constable
(Executive) on 11.01.2010. After about a year and a half, on 05.06.2011, a
first information report (FIR No. 190/2011) was registered at Police Station,
Sadar Rohtak (Haryana), under Section 392 IPC read with Sections 25 and
54 of the Arms Act, in connection with the snatching of money of a truck
driver. The FIR was against unnamed persons. The petitioner was
W.P.(C.) No.2551/2014 Page 1 of 9
implicated in the said case; was arrested and lodged in judicial custody. The
petitioner was placed under deemed suspension by the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi, vide order dated
22.06.2011 consequent upon his arrest. The petitioner was granted bail by
the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, on 21.05.2012. The petitioner and the
other accused were not identified by the prosecution witnesses. On the basis
of the evidence recorded by the trial court, the petitioner was acquitted.
There was yet another FIR being case FIR No. 173 dated 15.05.2011 under
Sections 392 IPC read with Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, PS Sadar
Rohtak, in relation to which the petitioner was arrested on 19.06.2011.
3. Vide order dated 03.01.2012, the services of the petitioner were
terminated by resort to Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules,
1965. It was directed that the period of suspension shall be treated as not
spent on duty.
4. The petitioner made a representation on 06.06.2012, which too was
rejected by the respondents vide order dated 17.08.2012. Consequently, the
petitioner preferred the original application before the Tribunal. The
submission of petitioner before the Tribunal, it appears from the impugned
order, was that the termination order had been passed merely on the basis of
conjectures and surmises on the presumption that the petitioner was
involved in the commission of the alleged crimes. The respondent had
merely relied on the contents of the two FIRs to conclude that the petitioner
was a desperate character.
5. The respondents had contested the petition wherein it was stated that
W.P.(C.) No.2551/2014 Page 2 of 9
the concerned police station at Rohtak (Haryana) had informed the
Commissioner of Police on 17.06.2011 that the petitioner had been arrested
on 16.06.2011 at 8.30 p.m. for his involvement in the case FIR
No. 190/2011 dated 05.06.2011. The copy of the FIR was got collected and
it transpired that the petitioner had been arrested even earlier in respect of
case FIR No. 173 dated 15.05.2011 under Section 392 IPC and that one
stolen motor cycle was recovered from the petitioner. Since the petitioner
had not completed his period of probation, the respondents resorted to
termination of the petitioner's services under Rule 5(1) of CCS (Temporary
Service) Rules, 1965, as he was involved in two heinous crimes of robbery
within a span of less than one month. The respondents took the stand that
the petitioner appeared to be a desperate character having criminal bend of
mind. Being an extremely irresponsible person, and being involved in
crimes of serious nature, he was required to be dealt with, with a heavy
hand.
6. The Tribunal while dismissing the petitioner's original application
took note of the judgment pronounced by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Rohtak, in Sessions Case No. 65 of 2011/12 on 26.03.2013, in which, the
petitioner was arrayed as accused No. 3. The Tribunal also noticed the
reasons why the petitioner had been acquitted, even though the stolen
vehicle was recovered from him. The Tribunal also took note of the
judgment of the Sessions Judge, Rohtak, in Sessions Case No. 93 of
09.09.2011/01.11.2011. After noticing several judgments, the Tribunal,
inter alia, observed as follows:
"24. Here, in the instant case, there was initially
W.P.(C.) No.2551/2014 Page 3 of 9
sufficient evidence collected by the prosecution against
the applicant/accused No.3 in the form of the stolen
motor vehicle recovered from him and its use in the
crime being committed, and the recovery of snatched
cash, etc., but ultimately they were unable to prove the
case before the relevant criminal trial Court beyond
reasonable doubt. However, as has been held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, the Disciplinary Authorities, in the
departmental proceedings, are not bound by the legal
dicta associated with conviction or acquittal beyond
reasonable doubt, as in departmental proceedings, it is
the concept of pre-ponderance of probabilities, which
prevails, and not the concept of beyond reasonable
doubt.
25. The applicant was only a probationer, and it is
trite law that probationer does not have any right to
claim that a detailed disciplinary inquiry ought
necessarily to be conducted in case of any malfeasance
on the part of the probationer, and that the services of a
probationer can be terminated, at any time, without
notice, whenever such termination is not by way of
stigma.
26. Here, in the instant case, the respondent
authorities are on further strong ground. The
appointment of the applicant was covered under the CCS
(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and in particular, Rule
5(2)(a) of that CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965,
which prescribes and provides as follows:
(2) (a) Where a notice is given by the Appointing
Authority terminating the service of a temporary
Government servant or where the service of any such
Government servant is terminated either on the expiry of
the period of such notice or forthwith by payment of pay
plus allowance the Central Government or any other
authority specified by the Central Government in this
behalf or a Head of Department, if the said authority is
W.P.(C.) No.2551/2014 Page 4 of 9
subordinate to him, may, of its own motion or otherwise,
re-open the case, and after making such enquiry as it
deems fit:-
(i) Confirm the action taken by Appointing Authority;
(ii) withdraw the notice :
(iii) reinstate the Government servant in service; or
(iv) make such other order in the case as it may consider
proper:
Provided that except in special circumstances,
which should be recorded in writing, no case shall be re-
opened under this sub-rule after the expiry of three
months:-
(a) (i) from the date of notice, in case where notice is
given:
(ii) from the date of termination of service, in a case
where notice is given.
27. It is, therefore, clear that the respondents were
fully within their rights to dispense with the services of
the applicant before us, by passing the impugned orders,
as they have done.
28. If a person, who was still in the period of his
probation, and was posted in a prestigious Police
establishment like that of the Rashtrapati Bhawan, can
stoop down to the level of involvement in such heinous
crimes, it would not have foreboden well for as to what
he would have done, or could have done, in future, just in
case he had been confirmed in the Police service."
7. We have heard learned counsels for the parties. From a perusal of the
impugned order, it is clear that the petitioner may have been involved in
W.P.(C.) No.2551/2014 Page 5 of 9
criminal cases of extremely serious nature and though the respondents may
be fully justified in taking action against the petitioner, the respondents do
not appear to have taken the action in question in accordance with law. A
perusal of the order dated 03.01.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner
of police, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi, shows that the same is highly
stigmatic. It is not an innocuous order which could have been passed by
resorting to Rule 5(1) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The order
passed by the respondents terminating the petitioner's service, inter alia,
reads as follows:
"On 21.6.2011, the Supdt. Of Police Rohtak, Haryana,
informed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, vide memo
No. 1302/ST, dated 17.6.2011 that Constable (Exe)
Maneesh Kumar, No. 380/RB (PIS No. 28106337) of
Delhi Police has been arrested on 16.6.2011 at 8.30 p.m.
for his involvement in case FIR No. 190 dated 5.6.201 u/s
392/397 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act, P.S. Sadar Rohtak.
The above mentioned report was received in this office
on 22.6.2011. Accordingly, Constable (Exe) Maneesh
Kumar No. 380/RB (PIS No. 28106337) was placed
under suspension w.e.f. 16.6.2011 i.e. his date of arrest
vide this office order No. 1892-1914/HAP-DCP/RB,
dated 22.6.2011 read with corrigendum issued vide No.
12-35/HAP-DCP/RB, dated 2.1.2012. SI(Exe) Vijay
Kumar No. D/3276 was deputed to attend the office of
SP/Rohtak and collect copy of FIR along with present
position/status of the case. SI Vijay Kumar in turn
visited the office of SP/Rohtak on 15.9.2011 and
collected memo No. 40001 dated 15.9.2011 according to
which Constable Maneesh Kumar, No. 380/RB was also
found arrested in case FIR No. 173 dated 15.5.2011 u/s
392 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act, PS Sadar Rohtak on
19.6.2011. Further, one motor cycle had also been
recovered from Constable Maneesh Kumar, No. 380/RB.
W.P.(C.) No.2551/2014 Page 6 of 9
Accordingly, necessary orders of deemed to be under
suspension w.e.f. 19.6.2011 i.e. date of arrest in case FIR
No. 173 dated 15.5.2011 u/s 392 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms
Act, PS Sadar Rohtak were also issued vide No. 2869-
90/HAP-DCP/RB, dated 21.9.2011. Constable Maneesh
Kumar, No. 380/RB (PIS No. 28106337) was enlisted in
Delhi Police as Constable on 11.1.2010 and has even not
completed his probation period. The alarming facts of
the case are that the Constable has been involved in two
heinous cases of robbery within a span of less than one
month and is running in judicial custody in both the
cases.
The contents of both the FIR of the criminal cases
shows that he is desperate having criminal bent of mind.
The act of heinous crime of the accused Constable is
extremely irresponsible, most abhorrent and serious in
nature and requires to be dealt with a heavy hand. If
such type of policeman, who is charged with a sacred
responsibility of upholding the rule of law, himself
indulges in such acts of heinous crime and lawlessness,
the faith of the common man in Govt's authority is
shattered. Such acts of misdemenour produce highly
deleterious impact on the organization and directly
erodes the very basis of police functioning and public
trust. Without people's trust, the police as service would
rather become irrelevant, its reputation and image so
assiduously built on sustained and good team work
suffers irreparable damage when an individual member
of disciplined force indulges in such an abhorable act.
The involvement of police Constable in heinous
crime like robbery in the beginning of his service career
shows his desperate character and his continuation in a
disciplined force is totally against public interest. The
police are the protector of the citizen's rights and
indulgence of a police Constable in crime of such
desperate nature would destroy the faith of the people in
the system. The involvement of the accused Constable in
W.P.(C.) No.2551/2014 Page 7 of 9
such criminal activities is not only undesirable but also
amounts to serious misconduct, indiscipline and
unbecoming of a Govt. servant. The said act has
rendered him unfit to be in the police force and his
continuation in service would be highly prejudicial to the
security of the citizens. If stern and drastic action is not
taken against this Constable who is still on probation
period with such a criminal bent of mind at once, it will
be a disservice to the department in particular and the
society, in general.
Taking a holistic view on the whole issue and the
gravity of the misconduct whereby he has taken the whole
department for a ride and seriously affected the
credibility of Delhi Police, the department cannot keep a
person with such criminal instinct as its member. Hence,
it is necessary to terminate the service of this Constable.
Accordingly, I, H.M.Meena, Deputy Commissioner of
Police, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi hereby order
that the services of Constable (Exe) Maneesh Kumar,
No. 380/RB are terminated with immediate effect from
Delhi Police under the provisions of Sub Rule (1) of Rule
5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. His
suspension period from 16.6.2011 to the date of issue this
order is hereby decided as period not spent on duty and
he will not draw anything else except what he had
already drawn in the shape of subsistence allowance. He
shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount
of his pay plus allowance for a period of one month at
the same rates at which he was drawing."
8. Such an order, which stigmatizes the petitioner could not have been
passed without holding an enquiry under the relevant rules, in which he
would have had the opportunity to defend himself.
9. On this short ground, in our view, the impugned order dated
W.P.(C.) No.2551/2014 Page 8 of 9
03.01.2012 terminating the petitioner's service cannot be sustained and is
accordingly set aside. Consequently, the order dated 17.08.2012 as well as
the impugned order of the Tribunal are set aside.
10. The matter is remanded back to the respondents, who are at liberty to
take appropriate action against the petitioner by following the due procedure
prescribed under the Delhi Police Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The
petitioner's period of suspension and all other issues relating to arrears of
salary and allowances shall be decided by the respondents in accordance
with law.
11. We make it clear that we have not examined the merits of the
allegations against the petitioner. Since the charges appear to be of a rather
serious nature, we expect the respondents to closely examine the same. In
view of the nature of the charges and the fact that a stolen vehicle was stated
to have been recovered from the petitioner we direct that the petitioner shall
be treated to be on deemed suspension henceforth till a final decision is
taken in the matter.
12. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. The parties are
left to bear their respective costs.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 sl W.P.(C.) No.2551/2014 Page 9 of 9