Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dhirender Nath vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 19 August, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.4086 of 2010 This the 19th day of August, 2011 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Dhirender Nath, Inspector (Ex.) in Delhi Police S/o S. N. Sharma PIS No.16900077, R/o B-4/33, Sector-11, Rohini, New Delhi-85 Applicant ( By Shri Anil Singal, Advocate ) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Joint Commissioner of Police (Southern Range), PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. D.C.P. (South-West District), Sector-19, Dwarka, New Delhi. Respondents ( By Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Dhirender Nath, an Inspector in Delhi Police, has been visited with the penalty of censure vide order dated 2.1.2010 passed by the disciplinary authority, which has since been confirmed in appeal vide order dated 18.6.2010 passed by the appellate authority. These are the orders which are under challenge in the present Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
2. A show cause notice dated 15.10.2009 came to be issued to the applicant on the allegation that a verbal complaint was received that FIR No.28/09 u/s 304 IPC was not investigated properly by the I.O., whereupon the VRK file of the case was summoned along with Shri Hans Raj, ACP/Delhi Cantt., Inspr. Dhirender Nath (the applicant), ATO PS/Naraina and ASI Ashok Kumar, I.O. of the case, and on scrutiny following lapses were noticed:
1. Two persons were brought by the PCR vehicle and handed over to ASI Ashok Kumar from the scene of crime. Still the ASI did not record the statement of PCR staff.
2. A call in this regard has been made by Shri Pulkit shah at 20.19 hours. This call has not been taken on record by the IO.
3. In this case the person who made call has been made accused and the persons handed over to the IO have been treated as complainants for no valid reasons. The investigation smells of impartial and unprofessional contact. The applicant was thus called upon to show cause as to why his conduct be not censured. The applicant filed his reply, in consideration whereof, while confirming the show cause notice, the disciplinary authority observed as follows:
He was heard in O.R. on 26-11-09. He was not even aware of the points on which Show Cause Notice for Censure was issued. He stated that there were no flaws in the investigation but is without response on the 3 points made in the Show Cause Notice. The haste with which the case has been put up for trial when a Vigilance Enquiry was pending suggests that everything is not O.K. Hence, the punishment proposed in the Show Cause Notice is confirmed. The conduct of Inspr. Dhirender Nath, No.D/3023, Inspr. A.T.O./P.S. Naraina (PIS No.16900077) is hereby censured. The appellate authority, while dismissing the appeal observed and held as follows:
I have gone through the appeal and other relevant records. I have also heard the appellant n person on 15.6.2010. In his appeal he has stated that the first IO of the case was ASI Ashok Kumar, he did not record the statement of PCR staff. The case was initially registered u/s 308/34 IPC on 14.2.09 and after death of injured, section 304 IPC was added and the case file handed over to the appellant on 20.2.09 for further investigation. The appellant recorded the main statement of I/C PCR Van ASI Rajnath on 27.2.09 and supplementary on 16.7.09. The call made by Pulkit shah at 2019 hrs. was sent by PCR to PS Delhi Cantt which was attended by ASI Bhoop Singh of PS Delhi Cantt. who found the place of incident under PS naraina and filed the call. However, the call already made by Rajender Shukla prior to the above call at 2002 hrs. was received at PS Naraina which was attended by ASI Ashok Kumar and consequently a case vide FIR No.29/09 u/s 308/34 IPC PS Naraina was registered. This call is very much on the record of case file. The case was already put in court for trial against the accused persons namely Rajeev Kumar and Pulkit who were arrested and sent to JC by the previous IO ASI Ashok Kumar. On the same matter a Cr. WP filed in Honble court had been dismissed on 15.4.09 and their bail application was also dismissed on 19.6.09. After completion of investigation, the case was put in court for judicial verdict on 21.7.09 which is pending trial.
I am not convinced with the pleas of the appellant. He has wrongly stated that he recorded statement of the PCR Van staff. In fact he merely recorded a formal few liner statement of ASI Rajnath which revealed nothing. It clearly shows that he willingly avoided writing the true version giving sequence of events and related facts of the incident. He recorded the full statement of ASI Rajnath of PCR only on 16.7.09 after he was issued an explanation on 12.6.09 on the basis of shortcomings revealed after scrutiny of the documents related to the case. The case had already been sent to court for trial (PIC) on 9.4.09. He also did not examine or recorded statement of other staff members posted on PCR Van on that day. The appellant also failed to collect the record of the call made by Shri Pulkit shah at 2019 hrs. to corroborate or negate the version of the accused/witnesses. He has been found negligent in the instant case for which the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is not excessive and the same is maintained. The appeal is rejected.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed reply and contested the cause of the applicant. The applicant has filed rejoinder as well.
4. We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. Learned counsel for the applicant would vehemently contend that allegations enumerated and reproduced above pertained to ASI Ashok Kumar who was the investigating officer of the case, and not the applicant. The first allegation relates to 13.2.2009 when ASI Ashok Kumar was the investigating officer, and it is he who handed over the two persons to the PCR and it may be he who might have failed to record statements of the PCR staff. The second allegation also relates to 13.2.2009 when Pulkit Shah made a call at 2019 hrs. but the I.O., i.e., ASI Ashok Kumar, failed to take on record this call. The allegation would not relate to the applicant as he came in the picture only on 20.2.2009. As regards the last allegation also, it is the case of the applicant that the same would relate to 13.2.2009, and if at all any blame was to be put, it could be only put on ASI Ashok Kumar.
5. The plea of the applicant that he was not the investigating officer at the relevant time has not been gone into by any of the authorities. The allegations are something else and discussion and findings by concerned authorities are entirely different. We are at loss to understand as to what would be the third allegation, only stating that in this case the person who had made the call had been made accused and the persons handed over to the IO had been treated as complainants for no valid reason, and that the investigation smelt of partial and unprofessional conduct. There is no clarity in the allegation, nor is there even an elaboration of the same in the impugned orders. We tried our very best to find out as to what was the correct version of the incident as per the case of the department, and how and in what manner it could be said that the person who made the call had been made accused and the persons handed over to the IO had been treated as complainants for no valid reason. To return a finding on the allegation as aforesaid, there had to be a correct version of the incident by clearly stating that as to who was the victim and who was the accused, and how the person who made the call was wrongly made accused, and those who were handed over to the IO had been treated as complainants for no valid reasons. The learned counsel representing the applicant has tried to explain without there being any pleadings in that regard, nor there being any inkling in the impugned order, that as a matter of fact, those who had beaten had themselves made a call, and, therefore, irrespective of the fact as to whether they had made a call or the victim might have made a call, the accused had to be those who had beaten. It is then pleaded that if the investigation was not correct and those who were actually accused were not culprits, there was no question of putting the challan and the challan had already been put in the court. We asked Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned counsel representing the respondents to explain as to what is the real story and in what manner it is alleged that wrong persons were made accused, but there is no satisfactory reply forthcoming. It may be difficult for this Tribunal to sort out the facts by calling the FIR and other related documents and to assess as to whether the allegation enumerated at number 3 is right or wrong.
6. In totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that this matter needs to be remitted to the disciplinary authority to have a fresh look at the entire case and to give its findings as regards the contention of the learned counsel representing the applicant that all the allegations pertained to a period when the applicant was not the investigating officer, and further that how and in what manner the applicant is stated to have wrongly made the person making the call as accused and the persons handed over to the IO as complainants for no valid reason. Learned counsel for parties during the course of arguments also suggested likewise.
7. Before we may part with this order, we may mention that despite the fact that censure may appear to be a minor punishment prescribed under rules, it is often seen that the same turns out as stumbling block in a big way in the matter of promotion of an officer in Delhi Police. Even though, there are instructions to state that unless the censures may be on the allegations of corruption and moral turpitude, the same may not be taken into consideration in case of promotion, but the law that has evolved is that overall service record of an officer is relevant for the purpose of his promotion. That being so, while proposing to visit a police officer with the penalty of censure, the concerned authority is to give serious thought.
8. For the reasons mentioned above, while quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 2.1.2010 and 18.6.2010 passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities respectively, we remit the matter to the disciplinary authority to decide the matter afresh in light of our observations as made above.
9. The Original Application is disposed of in the manner indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/