Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sub-Inspector Rattan Lal vs Gnct Of Delhi on 26 May, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA NO. 541/2011 New Delhi, this the 26th day of May, 2011 HONBLE SHRI GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) Sub-Inspector Rattan Lal, S/o late Shri Sobha Ram, R/o House No. 408, 3rd Floor, Village Shahpur Jatt, Hauz Khas, Delhi. Applicant. (By Advocate: Sh. Saurabh Ahuja) V E R S U S 1. GNCT of Delhi Through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 2. Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police (GA) PCR, Delhi Through Commissioner of Police, PHQ, IP Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Taffic) Through Commissioner of Police, PHQ, I.P. Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 4. Deputy Commissioner of Police (DE Cell) Through Commissioner of Police, PHQ, I.P. Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 5. Mr. H.S. Bisht, Enquiry Officer, ACP, DE Cell, Delhi Through Commissioner of Police, PHQ, I.P. Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocate: Mrs.P.K. Gupta) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri George Paracken:
This is the second round of litigation by the applicant before this Tribunal. The reliefs sought by him in the earlier O.A. 1304/2010 filed by him were to quash the order dated 11.06.2009 initiating a regular departmental enquiry against him and appointing an Enquiry Office to conduct the same and to grant him all the consequential benefits viz. promotion, seniority, difference in pay, etc. This Tribunal considered the aforesaid reliefs sought by the applicant and disposed of the OA vide Annexure A-10 order dated 01.11.2010 with a direction to the competent Disciplinary Authority to consider his representation dated 20.04.2010 and also the grounds and facts stated by him in the O.A itself as a supplementary representation, dispassionately and to grant him a personal hearing before passing any order thereon, within a period of 8 weeks.
2. Pursuant to the aforesaid Order, the respondents have passed the impugned Annexure A-3 order dated 21.01.2011 rejecting the Applicants request for dropping the departmental enquiry already initiated against him. The said order reads as under:
In pursuance of judgment dated 1-11-2010 (Para-8) passed by Honble CAT in O.A. No. 1304/10 SI Rattan Lal Vs. GNCT of Delhi and others. The representation submitted by SI Rattan Lal was perused and the delinquent SI was heard in O.R. on 20-1-2011. He has shown 2 DDs enries regarding his court attendance & CL of one day. But these documents are neither forwarded by Inspector or attested by ACP. He has also not produced any document supporting his leave sanction etc. He has further taken the ground that he is a heart patient and is also citing other officers example, which is obviously not part of his DE. Moreover, the allegation contain organized corruption, and he being in court or CL on two different dates during which sting was conducted will not suffice to drop his DE. He should get completed the DE pending against him.
3. The applicant has, therefore, approached this Tribunal in the present OA to quash and set aside both the aforesaid orders dated 11.6.2009 and 20.1.2011.
4. The Summary of Allegations furnished to the Applicant along with the aforesaid Annexure-A1 order dated 30.09.2009 is as under :-
It is alleged against SI Rattan Lal No.2249/D, ASI Kishan Kumar No. 904/D and HC Anil Kumar No.418/T that while posted in Traffic Circle R.K. Puram in the year 2007, they were found involved in corrupt practices in an organized manner.
That on 28.09.207 under Moti Bagh flyover Const. Rahul No.1188/T and Const. Vishram No.1643/T under the supervision of ASI Krishan Kumar No.904/D were found indulged in corrupt practices.
That on 28.09.07 at pre-paid booth, Safdarjung Hospital, HC Lakhbir Singh No.292/T and Ct. Ram Bharose No.1049/T under the supervision of SI Rattan Lal were found indulged in corrupt practices and again on 13.10.07 at Bhikaji Coma Place his subordinate staff HC Rajender No.439/T, Ct. Jai Ram No.292/T, Ct. Sanjeev Kumar No.617/T and Ct. Mahesh No.1998/T were found indulged in corrupt practices.
That on 28.9.7 at Bhikaji Cama Place, Ct. Viijender No.4399/T and Ct. Rajpal No.1080/T under the supervision of HC Anil Kumar 418/T were found indulged corrupt practices.
That in pursuance of Honble High Court of Delhis order in connection with writ petition No.29/2008, Chetan Prakash Vs. State, a vigilance enquiry was conducted in Vigilance Branch, Delhi Police which revealed that the above police personnel who were deployed in traffic circle R.K. Puram were found indulged in corrupt practices. Their indulgence in corrupt practices is clearly visible in CDs submitted by the complainant Sh. Chetan Prakash before the Honble High court in the above mentioned writ petition.
The above act on the part of SI Rattan Lal No.2249/D ASI Krishan Kumar No.2305/T (now 904/D) and HC Anil Kumar No.418/T, R.K. Puram Circle amounts to gross misconduct, lack of integrity, carelessness, lack of supervision and dereliction in the discharge of their official duties which renders them liable to be dealt with departmentally under the provision of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980
5. According to the applicant, the said Annexure A-1 order dated 11.06.2009 is arbitrary, against the settled norms and against the law laid down by this Tribunal in a catena of judgments. He has also submitted that the summary of allegations levelled against him is vague and, therefore, he will not have a reasonable opportunity to defend his cause in an effective manner. Further, the allegations are absolutely false and misconceived and there is no misconduct or irregularity qua him to attract any departmental action against him and, therefore, the said impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. As regards the order dated 21.01.2011 is concerned, according to the applicant, the respondents have not dealt with any of the grounds raised by him in OA No. 1304/2010 (supra) and his representation dated 20.04.2010. Instead, the respondents have considered the wrong and irrelevant facts while passing the said order.
6. In support of his contention that the allegations are vague, he has relied upon the instructions contained in the Annexure A-13 letter dated 10.12.2008 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, DE Cell, the relevant portion of which reads as under:
In this connection it is stated that IO DEs file along with CDs on the allegation that Traffic staff have been involved in corrupt malpractice in an `organized manner have been received vide order Nos under reference to conduct the same in DE Cell. On examination of these files, the Enquiry Officers have observed that the draft summary of allegations have following material discrepancies due to which it is very difficult to conduct DEs on the basis of such draft :-
No clear mention of nature of corrupt practice has been made out.
How & why it has been termed as `organised manner?
Date & Time of incident, place of incident has not been mentioned.
Scene numbers not indicated in CDs as per witnesses mentioned in the list of PWs.
Inter linking of each delinquent with the particular/relevant scene and CD not mentioned. Neither roll/lapse of the individual delinquent collaborated in the Summary of Allegation.
It is, therefore, requested that the above mentioned discrepancies may please be got removed/clear accordingly at the earliest and DE file be sent to this office which are returned herewith for doing the needful so that further proceedings into the DE could be started.
7. On the same issue, he has also relied upon the Annexure A-14 judgment of the Honble High Court in WP (C) No. 6457/2010 Laxmi Narain Vs. UOI & Ors. (Annexure A-14) wherein it has been held as under:
It is settled law that a charge-sheet which is vague and does not disclose even particulars is liable to be quashed.
8. The applicant has reiterated his earlier contentions taken before this Tribunal in his earlier OA No.1304/2010 that on 27.09.2007 that he was not present at the spot mentioned in the allegations as he went to attend the court of Shri S.K. Mohi, ASJ, Tis Hazari Court in Suit No. 448/2004 Praveen Sethi Vs. Sunita Verma & Ors. In support of the aforesaid contentions, he annexed a copy of the DD No. 11 dated 28.09.2007 He has also produced a copy of the DD No. 33 dated 28.09.2007 wherein it has been stated, At 7 PM, I along with Const. Driver and Govt. Vehicle came back from court vide DD No. 11 after attending the Honble Court to R.K. Puram Traffic Circle and I departed to Point Duty RKC-4 by Order ACP/T-SW, the work of ZO/62 will be looked after by SI Umesh Sharma. I handed over the Govt. vehicle, WT set to SI Umesh Sharma. He has also stated that on 13.10.2007, the date mentioned in the allegations against him he was not present at the spot as he was on leave from 12.10.2010 and he has produced a copy of DD No. 18 dated 12.10.2007 in this regard wherein it has been stated that he came at R.K. Puram Circle from duty and proceeded to avail casual leave 2 + 2 days sanctioned by ACP/T-SW and arrival from casual leave was only on 17.10.2007.
9. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon an order of this Tribunal in O.A No. 2600/2006 Insp. M.L. Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors. wherein the question with regard to failure on the part of the applicant to sensitize and supervise the staff working under his control to refrain from such type of illegal activities has been considered and the following decision has been taken:
The job of a police officer from Constable upwards is such that he has to go to different places for making enquiries and it is not possible that the superior officer could always accompany him or keep a watch over him from a distance in order to be able to personally supervise his behaviour. If in the performance of his duties an official indulges in corruption, then it is the individuals misconduct and not the misconduct on the part of the supervisor, who is at another place. The applicant has already stated that it has not been contested by the respondents that he has been briefing the staff regularly, which should be sufficient for sensitization of the staff working under him. In our view the misconduct of the Constable who was caught taking bribe twenty kilometers away from Police Station, cannot be alleged to be misconduct on the part of the SHO. As we have said earlier, such acts are results of individual traits for which the supervisory officer cannot be blamed, in the facts and circumstances of this case.
10. The learned counsel for the applicant has also invited our attention to Annexure A-16 order dated 30.11.2010 issued by the Addl. Commissioner of Police, Delhi in a similar case and the relevant part of the same is reproduced below:
I have carefully gone through the findings of the E.O., statements of PWs/DWs and defence statement of delinquent and other record/material available on file and heard in person on 29.11.2010. The pleas advanced by the delinquent are seems to tenable on the following grounds:-
Very recently the Honble High Court has passed judgment in some cases showing that the Summary of Allegations/Charge should be specific, to the point and not vague. Hence, the role of each individual shown in the CDs should have been specifically mentioned in the Summary of Allegations/Charge.
The Inspector was on duty at Nirankari Samagam from 17.11.2007 to 20.11.2007 away from his field of operations.
The date of recording shown in the CDs 01.01.2000 do creates some confusion. The person (Mr. Chetan Prakash) who is so-daring and intelligent cannot commit such a silly mistake. Obviously, there is something fishy.
The CDs provided by Sh. Chetan Prakash are not original and yet to be authenticated.
11. The respondents have filed their reply. They have taken the preliminary objection that this application itself is premature as all the issues raised by the applicant in it are matters of departmental inquiry which is being conducted by the ACP/DE Cell. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that, as in the case of Annexure A-16 order dated 30.11.2010, it is for the disciplinary authority to consider the allegations against him and to take an appropriate decision in view of the particular facts mentioned in the allegations. He has further submitted that the orders of this Tribunal as well as that of the High Court have all been passed after the disciplinary inquiries were conducted in the corresponding case.
12. The learned counsel has also submitted that the respondents could not pass the final order in the present case even though disciplinary proceedings are at an advanced stage because of the interim order of this Tribunal dated 03.02.2011 restraining the respondents from doing so.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the entire documents available on record. The contention of the applicant is that he was not present on the spot on the two relevant dates mentioned in the allegations against him. It is a disputed matter which can be proved only on the basis of evidence adduced during a departmental inquiry held in accordance with the rules. The judgment of the Honble High Court in the case of Laxmi Narain (supra) or the order of this Tribunal in the case of Inspector M.L. Sharma (supra) relied upon by the applicant, in our considered view, will not come to his rescue. In both the cases, petitioner/applicant approached the High Court/this Tribunal after the departmental inquiry was completed in accordance with the relevant rules. Again, the Annexure A-16 order of the disciplinary authority is also after duly considering the inquiry report and the representations of the delinquent officer and, therefor, reliance of the applicant on that order is also of no use. Moreover, the disciplinary authority has clearly stated the reasons as to why he has to face the departmental proceedings already initiated against him in the impugned Annexure A-3 letter dated 21.01.2011.
14. This Tribunal cannot assume the role of the disciplinary authority. Further, this Tribunal is not expected to interfere with the departmental inquiry proceedings at the interlocutory stage, as it has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or otherwise of the charges. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Upendra Singh (JT 1994 (1) SC 658) has also held accordingly. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under :-
In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry the Tribunal or Court can interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation of particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The Tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or other wise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to Court or Tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as the case may be. The function of the Court/Tribunal is one of judicial review, the parameters of which are repeatedly laid down by this Court. It would be sufficient to quote the decision in H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-Cum-Assessing Authority , Karnal & Ors. v. M/s Gopi Nath & Sons and Ors. (1992 Supp. (2) SCC 312). The Bench comprising M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as he then was) and A.M. Ahmadi J., affirmed the principle thus :
Judicial review, it is trite, is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. Judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness or reasonableness of a decision as a matter of fact. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment reaches, on a matter which it is authorized by law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It will be erroneous to think that the Court sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself.
15. In the result, we find no merit in this case and accordingly the same is dismissed. The interim order dated 03.02.2011 passed by this Tribunal in this case also stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Dr. A.K. Mishra ) ( George Paracken )
Member (A) Member (J)
SRD