Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Insp. Ravinder Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India Through on 8 September, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI O.A. NO.589/2009 This the 8th day of September, 2009 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE SHRI L. K. JOSHI, VICE-CHAIRMAN (A) Insp. Ravinder Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Sarup Sharma, R/O 162, Harsh Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi-110034. Applicant ( By Shri Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate ) Versus 1. Union of India through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Joint Commissioner of Police, Southern Range, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, South West District, Delhi. Respondents ( By Mrs. Pratima Gupta, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Censure is a minor punishment and yet, it is seen, while considering one for promotion to higher rank, insofar as Delhi Police is concerned, the same is taken quite seriously. Even though, there are instructions issued by the department itself that unless censures may be such as touching upon integrity of an employee, the same should not normally be taken into consideration for promotion, and yet the law that has developed is that the entire record of an employee has to be taken into consideration for considering him for promotion. Considering this aspect of the case, it appears, Special Commissioner of Police (Administration), issued instruction on 10.8.2007 that censures/dies-non may not be issued on extremely petty issues. It is mentioned in the instructions, as may be observed, that show cause notices for censure/dies-non are being issued by senior officers on extremely petty issues, which are later filed, and that in future show cause notices for censures/dies-non should be preceded by a notice asking for explanation of the individual concerned to explain his conduct, and if his explanation is not found satisfactory, or if the individual chooses not to respond, then only show cause notice for censure/dies-non should be issued. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the concerned respondent authorities justifiably issued censure to the applicant, is the question to be determined in this Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 by Ravinder Kumar Sharma, Inspector in Delhi Police.
2. Brief facts of the case reveal that show cause notice dated 24.5.2007 came to be issued to the applicant on the allegation that on the night of 18th May, 2007, four robbers forcibly jacked one Aveo car DL 1YA 7646 along with its driver Praveen Kumar from Sector 22, Dwarka. The driver was mercilessly beaten and thrown out of the moving car near Delhi-Haryana border. The matter was comprehensively reported to P.S. Dwarka, but the local police registered only a theft case vide FIR no.472/07 u/s 379 IPC. Later on the facts came to light when the vehicle was intercepted at Nepal border, and the counterparts of UP Police informed SHO/Dwarka that the accused along with the jacked car had been nabbed, and requested that a team from P.S. Dwarka be sent immediately for needful action. It was observed that even after receiving such vital information, the team of P.S. Dwarka was not despatched for about 24 hours. While making mention of repeated instructions that on receipt of information related to cognizable offences, appropriate legal action should be taken promptly and appropriate sections of law be applied, and further that minimization of crime on the part of local police is a serious matter which not only leads to erosion of police credibility but also emboldens the criminals further who get away lightly, the applicant was required to show cause within fifteen days as to why his conduct be not censured for the said lapses, failing which it was to be presumed that he had nothing to say in his defence and the notice would be decided ex parte on its merit. The applicant in his reply pursuant to the show cause notice stated that in the concerned case FIR was registered on the statement of complainant Praveen Kumar, who was driver/employee of Lalit Kumar. The owner, i.e., Lalit Kumar was an advocate himself and he accompanied Praveen Kumar in the police station at the time of registration of the case. Since the vehicle in question was a commercial one, i.e., taxi plying at IGI airport, the owner was mainly concerned with the insurance claim in future if the vehicle could not be traced, and, therefore, the case was registered as per the version of the driver and owner of the car. However, the section of law was amended accordingly when real facts came to notice. Regarding sending police team to Nepal border, the applicant stated that information regarding recovery of the car was received in P.S. Dwarka on 21.5.2007 through the owner of the car and that no information was officially received from U.P. Police in that regard, and further that the I.O. had to travel about 1000 kms. by train and further local journey, for which railway tickets were obtained through railway warrant, and police team was despatched on the same day, i.e., 21.5.2007. The applicant prayed for vacation of the show cause notice. Shalini Singh, Deputy Commissioner of Police, South-West District, disciplinary authority of the applicant, vide order dated 20.9.2007 inflicted the punishment of censure upon the applicant. The first para of the order is almost verbatim reproduction of the show cause notice. The first half of the unnumbered second para is almost verbatim reproduction of the reply of the applicant. The unnumbered third para, which is only relevant part of the order, reads as follows:
After perusal of the above reply of the Inspr., my predecessor has observed that the reply submitted by the Inspr. is not satisfactory. Therefore, assessing all relevant aspects, the punishment proposed in the show cause notice has been confirmed and the conduct of Inspr. Ravinder Kumar, No.D-1/312 (PIS No.16850132) censured. Constrained, the applicant filed an appeal on variety of grounds mentioned in the memorandum of appeal dated 25.4.2008. However, his appeal was rejected vide order dated 9.6.2008. The order passed by the appellate authority is not as cryptic as the one passed by the disciplinary authority, but the same also does not deal with the points raised by the applicant at all. Insofar as thus, the order passed by the appellate authority is relevant, the same is reproduced below:
I am not convinced with the pleas of the appellate authority as the same appears to be an afterthought. In fact, the vehicle was jacked by 4 robbers along with its driver from the area of PS/Dwarka and the local Police did not register a case under appropriate section of law. However, a case of u/s 379 IPC was registered by the appellant and the same had been amended when UP Police recovered the vehicle from the robbers at Nepal Border, further the registration of case has no relevancy as to whether the vehicle was commercial one or otherwise. It has also been seen from the record that the information was conveyed by UP Police to the appellant about the nabbing of accused along with jacked car and also requested to send the team for needful action but the appellant did not take timely action into the matter. The appellant should have taken action promptly under appropriate section of law when the vehicle was jacked by 4 robbers along with its driver. But he failed to do so.
3. Shri Arun Bhardwaj, learned counsel representing the applicant, vehemently contends that whereas the disciplinary and appellate authorities would not mention a word with regard to the defence projected by the applicant, nor thus even rely upon the material that the applicant brought to their notice, but have also not returned the finding of guilt based upon any evidence, oral or documentary, and further that they did not refer to any evidence showing that the information received by the police with regard to the incident was of higher dimension and intensity disclosing far more serious offence than the one for which FIR was registered. The learned counsel further contends that there was no evidence available nor thus, referred to by the authorities that as to on what date and time the police station where the applicant was posted, had received the information with regard to the culprits having been nabbed, and if that be so, there could be no consequential finding with regard to despatching of police team late. On the other hand, the applicant brought on record the exact FIR lodged by none other than the complainant himself, which would not disclose any offence u/s 392/34 IPC. He had also brought on record the exact date and time when information was received with regard to the criminals having been apprehended. That the applicant as also a team had visited the place immediately where the accused were apprehended, has been proved.
4. Before we may proceed with this case, we may mention at the very outset that during the course of arguments it remained undisputed that the observation of the disciplinary authority that her predecessor had already found the explanation furnished by the applicant to be unsatisfactory may not be correct. Ms. Pratima Gupta, learned counsel representing the respondents, states that there is no record that may show that the predecessor of the disciplinary authority had expressed any opinion in the matter. FIR in the said case was lodged by Praveen Kumar. Copy of the same has been annexed with the rejoinder as Annexure A-9. It appears that the FIR was lodged on the following day of the incident. The FIR is in Hindi, but when translated into English, the same may read as follows:
Statement of Praveen Kumar S/o Ratan Singh R/o Village Samalakha ambedkar Colony, C/O Bittoo, New Delhi, aged 34 years. It is stated that I am residing with my family at the above address and am working as a driver. At about 11.50 in the night of 18/5/07 I had parked my car No. DL-1YA-7646 AVEO white color model 2007, engine No.3455747, chasis No.09665 at Sector 22, in front of Dream Appt., Plot No.14, and had gone inside to call Shri Praveen Bhardwaj, Senior Manager, Sahara Airlines. After some time when I came out, I found that my car No. DL-1YA-7646 was not at the place where I had parked it. I searched for the car for quite some time, but could not locate the same anywhere. It appears to me that my car No. DL-1YA-7646 has been stolen by some unknown person. Legal action be initiated. My car had a wireless set as also my purse containing Rs.500/- and D/L and badge. Some unknown person has stolen the car. I have read the statement and the same is correct. Sd/- English Attested ASI Ramnath P.S. Dwarka dt.19/05/07. From the reading of the FIR reproduced above, no case of robbery, loot or causing hurt to the driver is made out. It appears that the contents of the FIR would not go beyond Section 379 IPC. If the applicant would not have any further information and had information from none other than the victim himself, we are unable to understand as to how the applicant would have ensured registration of FIR under other sections of law as well. As mentioned above, there is no mention in the impugned orders as to how the applicant or any one at the police station where the applicant was posted, could come to know that the incident may be far higher in dimension and intensity and may have disclosed far more serious offences. Insofar as, despatching the team to Nepal Border after the accused had been nabbed is concerned, once again, there is no reference at all in the impugned orders as to who had sent the information to PS/Dwarka, and if so, on what date and time. On the contrary, it is the applicant who has brought on record the statement of owner of the car, which he made under Section 161 Cr.PC on 21.5.2007. When translated into English, the same reads as follows:
Case FIR no.472/07 dated 21.05.07 u/s 392/34 IPC, PS Dwarka, Distt. South West, Delhi.
Statement of Shri Lalit R/o C-179, Sushant Lok-I, Gurgaon, Haryana, Age-45 years (161 CrPC).
Stated that I along with my family reside at the above address and I am an Advocate by profession. Today, on 21.05.07 I had received a telephonic call from Police Station Tarya Sujjan, Distt. Kushinagar (U.P.) that my looted car no. DL 1Y-7646 Aveo Chevrolet has been seized in their Police Station and one accused Mahesh Jaat has been nabbed in this regard. I have told them regarding vehicle registration no. and make etc. which were conformed by them. You have written my statement which I have read and admitted to be correct. It is on the very day when the owner of the vehicle made his statement that the applicant as also a team went to the place where the accused had been apprehended. The accused were duly arrested.
5. We first thought that while setting aside the impugned orders, we may remit the matter to the authorities to reconsider the whole issue, but we find from the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents that there is no material with them to pin down the applicant on the allegations as made in the show cause notice, nor even during the course of arguments it is stated that any material is available with the department on the basis of which the allegations may be proved. Remitting the matter in the circumstances thus, would be an exercise in futility. We thus choose to straightway allow this Application. Consequently, show cause notice dated 24.5.2007 and the impugned orders dated 20.9.2007 and 9.6.2008 passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities respectively, are quashed and set aside. The applicant will be entitled to all consequential reliefs under rules. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
( L. K. Joshi ) ( V. K. Bali ) Vice-Chairman (A) Chairman /as/