Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vijay Pal Singh Aged About 43 Years vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 6 April, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.811/2010 OA No.251/2010 OA No.265/2010 OA No.266/2010 New Delhi this the 06th day of April, 2010. Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. (Mrs.) Veena Chhotray, Member (A) OA 811/2010 Vijay Pal Singh aged about 43 years Inspector in Delhi Police PIS No.16890002 s/o late Shri D P Singh r/o C-80, Sarojini Nagar New Delhi-35 ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Anil Singal) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Commissioner of Police Police Head Quarters IP Estate, New Delhi 2. Special Commissioner of Police Armed Police, PHQ IP Estate, New Delhi 3. DCP (Enquiry Officer) DE Cell, Police Bhawan, Darya Ganj, Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocate: Ms. Jyoti Singh) OA 251/2010 SI Rambir Sharma (Singh) PIS No.16980001 s/o Shri Jagram Sharma r/o 1326, Sector 19 Faridabad, Haryana ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Anil Singal) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Commissioner of Police Police Head Quarters IP Estate, New Delhi 2. Special Commissioner of Police Armed Police, PHQ IP Estate, New Delhi 3. DCP (Enquiry Officer) DE Cell, Police Bhawan, Darya Ganj, Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocate: Ms. Jyoti Singh) OA 265/2010 SI Vijay Pal PIS No.16950118 s/o Shri Umed Singh r/o 416/33, Onkar Nagar B Trinagar, New Delhi-35 ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Anil Singal) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Commissioner of Police Police Head Quarters IP Estate, New Delhi 2. Special Commissioner of Police Armed Police, PHQ IP Estate, New Delhi 3. DCP (Enquiry Officer) DE Cell, Police Bhawan, Darya Ganj, Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocate: Ms. Jyoti Singh) OA 266/2010 ASI Narender Singh PIS No.28760207 s/o late Shri Jas Ram r/o 928/5, Gali No.7 Patel Nagar, Gurgaon, Haryana ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Anil Singal) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Commissioner of Police Police Head Quarters IP Estate, New Delhi 2. Special Commissioner of Police Armed Police, PHQ IP Estate, New Delhi 3. DCP (Enquiry Officer) DE Cell, Police Bhawan, Darya Ganj, Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocate: Ms. Jyoti Singh) O R D E R Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J):
As these OAs are grounded on same facts and founded on an identical question of law, are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Assailed by officers of Delhi Police in different ranks, including Inspectors and Sub Inspectors is an order passed on 14.08.2009, initiating departmental enquiry (DE) for a major penalty under Rule 16 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 as well as summary of allegations issued by Deputy Commissioner of Police (DE Cell) against 12 persons, out of which four have challenged it.
3. At the outset, in the matter of departmental proceedings at an interlocutory stage when a chargesheet has been issued nothing precludes in law this Tribunal to interfere if the charges framed when read with imputation are contrary to any law, as ruled by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Upendra Singh, 1994 SCC (L&S) 768 and as reiterated by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Kunni Shetty Satyanarayana, (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 304.
4. Applicants have been alleged from the period 1.2.2007 to 11.1.2008 while being deployed in Kalkaji Circle at Badarpur Bus stand to have spared deliberately challaning and impounding the buses of one Nawab Khan whereas other blue line buses have been challaned and their permits have been suspended/impounded and the figure is an aftermath of a report published in the daily Indian Express on 9.10.2007. A summary of allegation was served where the following allegations have been leveled:
It is alleged that during the tenure of these above mentioned police officers, as many as 11 blue line buses relating to Nawab Khan were being operated on route No.460 & 405 which were found to have been prosecuted only on 11 occasions and permit suspended/buses impounded only on 2 occasions. On the other hand 59 other blue line buses operated on the same route were found to have been prosecuted on as many as 142 occasions and permits were found suspended/impounded on 17 occasions. This clearly indicated that other vehicles/buses were targeted but the buses/vehicle pertaining to Nawab Khan were deliberately spared. Besides, it was also found that many other buses pertaining to different individuals displayed the name of Khan in lieu of which the said Nawab Khan indulged in extorting money on the one hand and prevented those buses from prosecution by the traffic police on the other. This resulted in publication of the issue through the news clipping in Indian Express dated 9.10.07 with a caption Nawab of Badarpur routes, Khan can break law and get away which obviously tarnishes the image of Delhi Police.
Besides, the bus No.DL-1P B-8776 pertaining to Nawab Khan and other was found involved in case FIR No.713/07 dated 7.10.07 U/s 279/337/304 IPC PS Badarpur where innocent lives were lost. It is also alleged that all these irregularities were being carried out because of their nexus with the bus owners especially Nawab Khan.
The above act on their part amounts to gross misconduct, lack of integrity, carelessness, negligence and dereliction in the discharge of Govt. Duties, which renders them liable to be dealt with departmentally under the provision of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980.
5. At this stage applicants have approached the Tribunal where the enquiry has been stayed. At the outset, learned counsel of applicants states that the chargesheet issued against applicants is contrary to law as in violation of Rule 16 (1) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 as well as vague and lacking in material particular. It is stated that the allegation that the buses relating to Nawab Khan despite violated traffic rules were neither challaned nor impounded by the applicants. The dates and the manner in which the violation of traffic rules have taken place have also not been specified and also the fact that the applicants were posted at the particular time despite knowledge have not taken any action.
6. Learned counsel would also state that the figures of 142 challans in respect of 59 blue line buses and impounding on 17 occasions belied from the RTI information received by them whereas in case of Nawab Khan the rate of prosecution was 1.70 as total buses operated were 11 and total prosecution were 21. It is also stated that in case of others it was 2.40. However, at the outset, learned counsel while relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court in Than Singh v. Union of India & Ors., 104 (2003) DLT 25 (DB) contended that the grounds on which the chargesheet can be questioned, inter alia, includes its vagueness. Learned counsel states that by not giving the particulars and particular role of the applicants alleged misconduct they have been deprived of, at the outset, a reasonable opportunity to effectively defend against the charges, which goes against the principles of natural justice.
7. Insofar as vagueness of the charge is concerned, learned counsel relied upon in Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 3 SLJ SC 421. Learned counsel further relied on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in D.B. Rao and others v. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad and another, 2006 (7) SLR 111. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Govt. of A.P. and others v. A. Venkata Raidu, (2007) 1 SCC 338 and another decision of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Sharif (Dead) through L.Rs., (1982) 2 SCC 376 to buttress his plea.
8. Lastly, the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in Union of India v. Const. Paramvir, W.P. (C.) No.8052/2003, decided on 6.11.2007, where a similar issue has been dealt with.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel of respondents Ms. Jyoti Singh vehemently opposed the contentions and at the outset states that what has been alleged against applicants is a general allegation, whereby the entire traffic staff, including 12 officers in a conspiracy deliberately helped with ulterior motives with Nawab Khan by not challaning his buses and impounding them despite violation, as compared to other vehicles. It is also stated that in an accident case where a number of innocent lives were lost irregularities have been committed with the nexus of the applicants. Learned counsel states that list of witnesses and documents include certain enquiry reports and also other material, which is sufficient. Learned counsel states that discrepancies in the figures would be subject matter of the enquiry, which cannot be interfered with at an interlocutory stage by the Tribunal on assumption of the role of departmental authorities.
10. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record. Principles of natural justice are essence of good administration but are flexible in approach. In violation of principles of natural justice, which includes audi alteram partem vitiates the order, as ruled by the Apex Court in Rajasthan S.R.T.C. v. Bal Mukund, (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 812. It is also held that under the principles of natural justice no adverse order should be passed without hearing, as laid down by the Apex Court in Allwyn Housing Association v. Govt. of A.P., 2009 (12) SCALE 309. The concept of a chargesheet issued to a delinquent Government servant is to give him full notice of the circumstances by summarizing the misconduct as alleged. A charge, which is vague, is contrary to law. A vague charge is a charge where the details of the allegations are not mentioned and the role of Government servant as to how he has misconducted is not specified. In Mohd. Sharifs case (supra) the Supreme Court clearly stressed on a proposition that in absence of necessary particulars in DE when the chargesheet is vague the delinquent is deprived of a reasonable opportunity to defend.
11. In Swai Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1986 SC 995 the charge framed has been held to be clear, definite and specific.
12. Moreover, Rule 16 (1) of the Rules ibid mandates that while the enquiry officer prepares a statement, summarizing the misconduct, it has to be in a manner to give full notice to him of the circumstances in regard to which evidence is to be recorded. The aforesaid rule, which is of substantive nature, commands the enquiry officer to frame the summary of allegation in such a manner that the fullest particulars and alleged misconduct are reflected.
13. Applying the aforesaid to the common charge-sheets, i.e., summary of allegations to the applicants, except detailing a general allegation as to posting of the applicants and deployment at a place where one Nawab Khan was plying his buses and a generalized statement that other blue line buses were challaned and impounded but the buses pertaining to Nawab Khan were deliberately spared, no details have been given as to the infringement of the traffic rules. For want of these particulars a bald statement as to mere deployment of the applicants has deprived them a reasonable opportunity to effectively defend the charges which are absolutely vague, indefinite, inconclusive and lacking in material particulars. Even applying the test of a common reasonable prudent man, such a summary of allegation would not pass the test of reasonableness. Such a chargesheet where charges are vague, lacking in material particular is contrary to law and can be interfered with by us, more particularly when Rule 16 (1) of the Rules is violated in framing the summary of allegations.
14. We are not condoning the misconduct of the applicants but have emphasized on conduct of the enquiry in consonance with the principles of natural justice, which when ignored and not followed, causes prejudice to the applicants to their detriment. This is a curable illegality.
15. Resultantly, for the foregoing reasons, leaving other grounds open, OAs are allowed to the extent that the summary of allegations in respect of applicants is set aside, including the DE order impugned in the present OAs with all consequences in law. However, this shall not preclude the respondents, if so advised, to take recourse of law as per our observations made above. No costs.
Let a copy of this order be placed in each case file.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (Shanker Raju) Member (A) Member (J) San.