Delhi High Court
Khemander Pal Singh And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 5 October, 2006
Equivalent citations: 137(2007)DLT525, (2007)146PLR25
Author: Vipin Sanghi
Bench: Manmohan Sarin, Vipin Sanghi
JUDGMENT Vipin Sanghi, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 21st September, 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 2510/01 preferred by the petitioners. By said order, the Tribunal has dismissed the original application filed by the petitioners.
2. The petitioner No. 1 and 2 are working with Delhi Police. In August, 1998, they were both posted as Sub-Inspector at police station, Seemapuri. On 9th August, 1998, petitioner No. 1 was in the area of police station, Seemapuri. At about 9.40 pm he reached near L-Pocket, Dilshad Garden where he found vehicles were parked in the middle of the road by the customers of 'Rasoi' restaurant which was creating problems in the smooth flow of traffic. Certain counters, chairs and tables were also found to have been laid out by the owners of the restaurant on the pavement. According to the petitioners, looking to the inconvenience caused to the public they stopped there and talked to the owners of the restaurant and advised them to require their customers to park their vehicles in a manner so as not to cause any problem in the smooth flow of traffic and also to remove the counter, chairs and tables pitched on the pavement. Admittedly, after some interaction with the owners of the restaurant namely Sh. Dinesh Kumar and his brother Sh. Harish Kumar, the petitioners took them to the police station. It is claimed by the petitioners that at the request of persons from the market and on the assurance of good behavior given to the SHO, Dinesh Kumar and Harish Kumar were directed to be released by the SHO. It is claimed by the petitioner that they were released at about 10.50 pm and the same was recorded by them in the daily dairy.
3. Sh. Dinesh Kumar and Sh. Harish Kumar lodged complaints against the petitioners and two others wherein they complained of being illegally taken to the police station, being beaten up and of being detained in the police station till about 4.00 am in the morning of 10th August, 1998. A preliminary enquiry was initiated, inter alia, against the petitioners which was conducted by Sh. D.R. Birdhi ACP/PG Cell. He submitted his enquiry report dated 13th August, 1998. It appears that during the course of his preliminary enquiry, the medical examination of the two complainants was got conducted which showed that they had been beaten up.
4. A regular departmental enquiry was thereafter ordered against the petitioners by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East District, Delhi on 13th August, 1998. Along with order constituting the enquiry, the summary of allegations, list of witnesses and the specific charges were also served on the petitioners. The charge levelled against the petitioners were ; (1) that they illegally brought Harish Kumar and Dinesh Kumar owners of 'Rasoi' restaurant, L-35/A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi to police station, Seemapuri at about 10.00 pm, (2) that they were beaten up in police station by the charged officers and no entry was made by them in the Roznamcha of bringing them to police station (3) that inspector Jai Prakash, SHO, Seemapuri had asked the charged officers to leave the two brothers Harish Kumar and Dinesh Kumar at their restaurant. However, on the aforesaid intervention of the SHO, charged officer S.I. K.P. Singh recorded the DD No. 31-A at 10.50 pm in which it was recorded that both the persons were set free after interrogation but in fact they were left only at about 4.00 am in the morning of 10th August, 1998 and thus there was disobedience of the order of the SHO and charged officer S.I. K.P. Singh recorded a false entry in the roznamcha. Thus the charged officers had acted in a high handed manner and misused their power being police officers.
5. In the regular departmental enquiry which followed, the preliminary enquiry report was proved by its author Sh. D.R. Birdhi, who appeared as PW3. On the basis of the evidence brought before him, the enquiry officer concluded that charged officer S.I. K.P. Singh has visited 'Rasoi' restaurant in Dilshad Garden owned by Sh. Harish Kumar and Dinesh Kumar at about 10.00 pm though neither it was in the area of his division nor he received any call about it. It was also established that he had altercations with the owner of 'Rasoi' restaurant and he called S.I. Lakhan Singh the second charged officer and other staff on the spot and took both the brothers to the police station illegally where they were illegally detained and beaten up by the charged officers. It was also established that no recording of the departure of the staff vehicles to the restaurant and arrival from the restaurant was made in the police station by S.I. K.P. Singh and S.I. Lakhan Singh and that the two complainants were relieved only about 3.00/4.00 a.m on 10.8.1998. The enquiry officer, therefore, held that the charges against the petitioners have been proved.
6. The Disciplinary Authority, that is the Deputy Police Commissioner of Police accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and vide his order dated 13th March, 1999 proceeded to award the punishment of "forfeiture of three years approved service for a period of three years permanently entailing proportionate reduction in their pay with the immediate effect. They will not earn increments during the period of reduction and after the expiry of this period the reduction will have the effect of postponing their future increments".
7. While coming to this conclusion the Disciplinary Authority noted that there were no reasons for the two petitioner to visit the restaurant as there was no PCR call and no daily diary entry was recorded either on arrival or at departure. He also noticed that the restaurant owners were not prosecuted for not having a license and that there was no need for them to be taken to the police station. He also notes that MLC clearly shows injuries on the two complainants.
8. The petitioner No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Police. The Appellate Authority on a consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that there was no basis to conclude that the two complainants were not released at 10.50 pm on 9th August, 1998 when the DD entry to that effect was made by the petitioners. On the charge of beating the two complainants, the Appellate Authority concurred with the Disciplinary Authority that though the medical examination of the complainant was conducted two days after the incidence, it was established that they were in fact beaten up. The Appellate Authority, taking a lenient view on account of the youth of the two petitioners who had just begun their careers in the police department, reduced the penalty to forfeiture of one year approved service temporarily with immediate effect.
9. The two petitioners thereafter, preferred Original Application No. 2510/01 before the Tribunal which has been rejected by the Tribunal by its impugned order.
10. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also examined the record. The first argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had been discriminated against in as much as, two other persons were also involved in the incident who had been let off the hook. We are not impressed by this argument. What is of relevance in the enquiry proceedings against the petitioners was whether they were guilty of misconduct or not. A comparative evaluation of the conduct of those who were not charged Along with the petitioners is not called for. It was next contended that the Medical Examination Report of the two complainants was not a part of the "relied upon" documents and therefore the same could not have been relied upon by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. As noticed here-in-above, it is clear from the enquiry report that the MLC report was a part of the preliminary enquiry and the contents of the preliminary enquiry were duly proved by Sh. Birdhi. It appears that the petitioners did not lead any evidence before the Enquiry Officer to challenge the medical report. The medical report which forms a part of the preliminary enquiry report establishes the fact that the injuries i.e. contusions sustained by the two complainants showed up in medical examination even after a couple of days which only shows that the beating given to them was severe.
11. The next contention of the petitioners is that there was a violation of Rule 15(3) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. Rule 15(3) reads as follows:
(3) The suspected police officer may or may not be present at a preliminary enquiry but when present he shall not cross-examine the witnesses. The file of preliminary enquiry shall not form part of the formal departmental record, but statements there from may be brought on record of the departmental proceedings when the witnesses are no longer available. There shall be no bar to the Enquiry Officer bringing on record any other documents from the file of the preliminary enquiry, if he considers it necessary after supplying copies to the accused officer. All statements recorded during the preliminary enquiry shall be signed by the person making them and attested by Enquiry Officer.
12. The contention of the petitioners is that the preliminary enquiry report could not form a part of the formal departmental record. In this case, as it appears, the preliminary enquiry report has not been made the basis of the enquiry report and consequent punishment of the petitioners. The MLC which was a part of the file of the preliminary enquiry only has been brought on record. It is not the petitioners' contention that they were not provided with copies or that they were not allowed to inspect the file of the preliminary enquiry. It was open to the petitioners to counter the incriminating material found in the file of the preliminary enquiry. This they chose not to do. In any event, even if we were to accept this argument of the counsel for the petitioners, it is clear that the petitioners, illegally, and without any complaint brought the two complainants to the police station and did not make any entry in the Daily Dairy to that effect.
13. Lastly, he has argued breach of standing order No. 125 to the extent that copies of individuals statements as recorded for the purpose of the preliminary enquiry were not provided. So far as this argument is concerned, we do not find any such grievance having been made by the petitioners before the Tribunal.
14. In the present case there are concurrent findings of fact arrived at with regard to their misconduct. The Tribunal on examination of the record has noted that the petitioners were given full opportunity at every stage of enquiry. The Appellate Authority in his order states that it is taking a lenient view, in view of the youth of the two petitioners and also the fact that they have a long way to go in their service. We agree with the Tribunal that beating of citizens at police station at the hands of the police officers is to be deprecated. Such violation of fundamental and human rights cannot be allowed to go unpunished, particularly at the hands of those who were entrusted with the enforcement of law.
15. It is established on record that the two complainants were picked up without any formal complaint or any complaint from any member of the public regarding any blockade of traffic and no recording to that effect was made by the petitioners in the Daily Dairy. Hence we feel that they have been rightly subjected to a minor penalty.
16. We do not find any error or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal which calls for interference by us in our writ jurisdiction.
17. Dismissed.