Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Si Raj Kumar vs Commissioner Of Police, Addl. Deputy ... on 7 March, 2008
ORDER
V.K. Bali, J. (Chairman)
1. Raj Kumar, a Sub Inspector in Delhi Police, the applicant herein, was departmentally tried on the following charge:
It is alleged against you S.I. Raj Kumar D-1336 (27870147) that while posted at PS Badarpur South Distt New Delhi, you were directed to conduct verification of address, provided by Smt. Kamlesh w/o late Ganga Saran and submit your report before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in criminal appeal No. 30/2000 filed by Smt. Kamlesh who had since been convicted in case FIR No. 403/99 Under Section 302/34 IPC P.S. Badarpur and undergoing sentence. You S.I. Raj Kumar No. D-1336 submitted your report dt. 9.7.02 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi confirming her address at Village Chakarsenpur P.S. Dadri Ghaziabad (Gautam Budh Nagar). On reverification conducted by Inspr Satish Kumar Sharma, D-1/887 it was found that you submitted an incorrect report. Smt. Kamlesh had no relative in Village Chakarsenpur. She neither lived/belonged to that village even nor her daughter's marriage took place there on 15.7.2002. On the basis of incorrect report submitted by you S.I. Raj Kumar D-1336 Smt. Kamlesh was given interim bail but she jumped the bail and is at large.
The enquiry officer while taking into consideration the evidence led by the department and the defence projected by the applicant, on the basis of reasons given by him, arrived at the following conclusion:
The careful study of statements of PWs recorded in the D.Enquiry and the documentary evidence on record go to prove the charge of gross misconduct, carelessness and dereliction in his duty by S.I. Raj Kumar D-1335 while submitting a report required by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. Appeal No. 30/2002. The charge is proved against him beyond reasonable doubt.
The disciplinary authority vide order dated 20.12.2005 while agreeing with the report of the enquiry officer, inflicted punishment of forfeiture of two years' approved service for a period of two years permanently entailing reduction in his pay from Rs. 6725/- to Rs. 6375/- per month. The appellate authority vide order dated 24.5.2006, finding no favour with the appeal preferred by the applicant against the order aforesaid, rejected the same. It is against the report of the enquiry officer and the orders passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities that the present Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been filed by the applicant. There would be no need at all to refer to the pleadings made by the parties in the Application and the counter reply inasmuch as, the fact that the applicant was indeed deputed to verify the facts and he had submitted his report, is not in dispute. That on re-verification, it was found that the applicant submitted incorrect report, is also not in dispute. The only point that has been urged in support of the Application is that the applicant was only to verify the factum of marriage of daughter of Smt. Kamlesh on 15.7.2002, and inasmuch as, he had given a report based upon enquiries made by him from residents of the village, his report cannot be said to be incorrect only for the reason that marriage of daughter of Smt. Kamlesh did not take place on 15.7.2002. Shri V.K.Sharma, Learned Counsel representing the applicant, in his endeavour to show that the applicant was only to verify as to whether the marriage of daughter of Smt. Kamlesh was to take place on 15.7.2002, relied upon para 5 P-Q of the counter reply, which reads as follows:
The applicant was required to verify only whether marriage of convict's daughter was to be solemnized at village Chakrasenpur on 15.7.2002.
Shri Ajesh Luthra, Learned Counsel representing the respondents, per contra, would, however, urge that the applicant was required to verify the address of Smt. Kamlesh as well. When the matter came up for hearing on 24.9.2007, on the controversy as reflected above, we passed the following order:
From summary of allegation (Annexure A-5), it appears that the allegation against the applicant was that while posted at P.S. Badarpur, South District, New Delhi, he was directed to conduct verification of address of Smt. Kamlesh W/o late Sh. Ganga Saran and submit his report before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 30/2000 filed by Smt. Kamlesh who was convicted and was undergoing sentence. It is further alleged that he submitted his report dated 9.7.2002 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi confirming her residence at Village Chakrasenpur, P.S. Dadri, Ghaziabad and on re-verification, it was found that the applicant has submitted a fake report.
The contention raised by Sh. Arun Bhardwaj, counsel for applicant is that the applicant was not directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to verify the address of Smt. Kamlesh.
Smt. Kamlesh had made an application for grant of parole on the ground that she wanted to marry her daughter in village Chakrasenpur and he was deputed to verify this fact. In support of his contention as mentioned above, counsel relies upon averments made in para 5 (p-q) of the counter which reads as follows:
P-Q The applicant was required to verify only whether marriage of convict's daughter was going to be solemnized at village Chakrasenpur on 15.7.2002.
Mr. Luthra, counsel representing the respondents, despite averments made in the counter affidavit, as reproduced above, would still urge that the applicant was required to verify the address of Smt. Kamlesh. It is an admitted position that the department did not produce on record either the application for grant of parole submitted by Smt. Kamlesh, accused in a murder case, or the orders passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. With a view to effectively determine the issue, it would be relevant to peruse the application filed by Smt. Kamlesh for grant of parole, and orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Respondents are directed to produce these documents on next date of hearing. List on 8.10.2007.
2. Records of the case and the various orders passed by the Hon'ble High court have been produced. What clearly emerges therefrom is that Smt. Kamlesh, convict in a murder case, filed Crl. Appeal No. 30/2000 in the High Court of Delhi. During pendency of the Appeal aforesaid, she made Crl. Misc. No. 1653/2002 for grant of parole. The title of the application seeking parole reads as follows:
In re-
Kamlesh v.
State MEMO OF PARTIES Kamlesh W/O Late Sh. Ganga Saran r/o Gram Chakrasenpur, Greater NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. P.S. Dadri.
... Applicant v.
State (Delhi Admn). ... Respondent Paragraph 2 of the application reads as follows:
2. That the marriage of the applicant's elder daughter Sheetal aged about 18 years has been fixed for 15th of July 2002 with Harichand at her residence Gram-Chakrasenpur, Greate Noida (Gautam Budh Nagar) P.S. Dadri, U.P. and her present is extremely important.
Along with the application has been attached the invitation card by Smt. Kamlesh wherein it has been mentioned that the marriage of her daughter Sheetal with Harichand would take place at her residence at Village Chakrasenpur, Greater Noida (Gautam Budh Nagar). The High Court issued notice in the Crl. Misc., which was accepted by Mr. Ravinder Chadha on behalf of the State. The application was to be listed again on 9.7.2002 at 2 p.m. In its order dated 9.7.2002, the High Court observed that the appellant had applied for interim suspension of sentence on the ground of her daughter's marriage which was scheduled to take place on 15.7.2002, and the Learned Counsel appearing for the State had verified this fact. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Court directed interim suspension of sentence of the appellant for a period of two months from the date of release on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. It appears from records of the case that Kamlesh jumped bail and in that connection, report of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mr. S. N. Dhingra, was called for by the High Court. It was reported to the High Court that when the warrant of arrest was issued, report had been received that she was not a resident of that village and that no such lady ever stayed in that village. Inspector Satish Kumar Sharma submitted report after recording the statement of two persons of that village. It was further mentioned in the report that Smt. Kamlesh did not own any moveable or immoveable property in her name in that village and the address furnished by her was false and fabricated. The report further revealed that when the interim bail came up for hearing, status report was called for, and SI Raj Kumar (applicant) vide his report dated 9.7.2002 submitted that the appellant was a resident of Village Chakrasenpur, Greater Noida. He also recorded the statement of two witnesses and confirmed the marriage of her daughter Sheetal on 15.7.2002. On such report, as mentioned above, the High Court observed that the State should verify as to which of the two reports was correct and take action against the erring official who had submitted false report in the Court. On 29.5.2003 the High Court observed as follows:
Enquiry report has been placed on record, which shows that the appellant accused Kamlesh has neither lived nor visited Village Chakrasenpur, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar (UP). She also does not own any moveable or immoveable property in that village. Marriage of her daughter also did not take place in that village in 2002. It appears that appellant took the bail on false pretext on account of the report of S.I. Raj Kumar. Let non bailable warrants be issued against appellant Kamlesh. Notice be also issued against the sureties under Section 446(2) Cr.P.C. to show cause as to why surety bond be not forfeited. Matter be placed before the Trial court for further directions. Lower court record be sent back to the Trial Court. In the meantime, report on the disciplinary action taken against S.I. Raj Kumar be intimated to this Court.
3. Even though, the charge against the applicant was primarily that he was to verify the address furnished by Kamlesh, and the department led evidence to prove the same, and the finding was also that she never resided in that village, but averment to the effect, as reproduced above, in para 5 (P-Q) of the counter reply, has been made. In our considered view, the same would not make the least difference to the case. The applicant does not dispute that when he was deputed to go to Village Chakrasenpur, he was given a copy of the parole application made by Kamlesh in the High Court. The High court had only issued notice. There was no direction by the High Court to verify the factum of marriage of daughter of Kamlesh. In the circumstances, as mentioned above, the applicant had to verify the contents of the application, which would certainly include as to whether Smt. Kamlesh was ever residing at Village Chakrasenpur. She in her application seeking parole had given her address and also stated in para 2 that the marriage of her daughter had been fixed for 15.7.2002 at her residence at Gram Chakrasenpur. There cannot be any doubt that the applicant had necessarily to verify the residence of Kamlesh and also as to whether the marriage of her daughter was to be solemnized in the said village. That being so, averments made in para 5 (P-Q) of the counter reply cannot be construed as if the applicant was to only verify the factum of marriage of the daughter of Kamlesh. It is interesting to note that the applicant in his report submitted in the High Court, on the basis of which Kamlesh was allowed interim bail, has himself stated that he was to verify the facts contained in the application made by her, and for that reason, he had gone to Village Chakrasenpur. Any prudent investigating officer, in the circumstances, ought to have made verification of the residence of Kamlesh. The plea raised by him that he was not required to enquire about the permanent address of Kamlesh nor to verify the moveable and immoveable property owned by her, was repelled by the enquiry officer by observing as follows:
Even if his above version is believed to be correct, the S.I. failed in his duty to make the correct verification regarding the request of the convict Kamlesh. He states that he recorded statements of two respectables of the village who corroborated the version of Smt. Kamlesh in the enquiry. Khem Raj is an ordinary resident of the village Chakrasenpur. He is neither the Pradhan of the village nor a member of Panchayat and how it was possible for the S.I. to contact him only to verify about the marriage of Kamlesh's imaginary ('imaginary' appears to be out of context) daughter on 15.7.02. He also recorded statement of Surender, a second person, whose existence is under doubt. PW-3 Shri Balak and PW-4 Raj Pal an ex village Pradhan clearly stated that there is no Surender Singh S/O Attar Singh in Village Chakrasenpur. The S.I. should have contacted the Pradhan of the village which we generally do in enquiries to know certain facts about the events/persons of the concerned village. The S.I. did not verify from any body about the identity of Kamlesh and even not from Khem Raj and Surender Singh whose statements he recorded in the enquiry. He did not verify the facts about her place of birth, marriage and children she had. He only recorded that the marriage of her daughter will be solemnized in the village on 15.7.02. He did not verify other details about the village/place from where the BARAT will come or whom she is going to be married with. His meeting with Khem Raj is not a coincidence. Jagat Singh, brother-in-law of Khem Raj conspired with Khem Raj to give such a statement to the officer who comes to verify or conduct enquiries that Kamlesh wanted to marry her daughter in village Chakrasenpur as her family members will object to the marriage if celebrated at her place. How come the S.I. met only Khem Raj and imaginary Surender Singh by coincidence to verify the above facts in favour of Smt. Kamlesh? To my mind, it was not a coincidence and there had been a prior meeting of the S.I. with either Jagat Singh or Khem Raj before he went to village Chakrasenpur to make the enquiries on the orders of the Hon'ble High Court and it was only on the basis of their prior meeting, the S.I. gave an incorrect report to the Court which resulted in grant of interim bail to the convict who later jumped bail and is at large.
4. The disciplinary and appellate authorities have accepted the report of enquiry officer. We find no illegality or infirmity in the report of the enquiry officer as also orders dated 20.12.2005 and 24.5.2006 passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities respectively. We do not find any substance in the contention of the Learned Counsel with regard to quantum of punishment as well. It is due to the false report submitted by the applicant that the convict in a murder case was granted interim bail who jumped the bail and has not surrendered so far. The indiscipline indulged by the applicant cannot be such that may deserve a punishment lesser than the one which has been inflicted upon him. 5. Finding no merit in the Application, we dismiss the same, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.