Delhi High Court - Orders
Ravinder Singh vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors on 3 November, 2022
Author: Satish Chandra Sharma
Bench: Chief Justice, Subramonium Prasad
$~R-201.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3933/2007
RAVINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Singal, Advocate.
versus
GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel with Ms. Laavanya Kaushik,
Advocate for respondent/ CP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
ORDER
% 03.11.2022
1. The Petitioner before this Court is a Constable in Delhi Police who was subjected to Disciplinary Proceedings, and upon having been found guilty, has been inflicted with the penalty of forfeiture of his entire service, bringing him down to the stage of a constable, the post at which he initially had joined.
2. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the Petitioner is a Constable posted in IX Battalion of DAP. While performing his duty as a PSO at E-Block, Security Lines, he was charge-sheeted for leaving his duty along with his service weapon without any intimation or prior permission of the Supervisory Officer. He was later found under the influence of alcohol. He lost his Service Pistol along with 12 live cartridges. The summary of the Signature Not Verified Digitaaly Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:18.11.2022 10:47:04 allegation is detailed as under:
"SUMMARY OF ALLEGATION It is alleged that Const. Ravinder Singh, No. 10281/DAP (PIS No.28902798) while posted in 9th Bn. DAP and performing duty at E Block Security Lines was detailed for P.S.O. duty with Shri Dilip Gandhi, M.O.S. for shipping a „Y‟ category protectee, R/o 120 South Avenue, New Delhi. On 24.9.2003, he left his duty along with service weapon from the residence of the P.P. without any intimation of prior permission of the supervisory officer and without informing any body that his reliever HC Mahender Singh, No.425/Sec. has not reported for duty. Later on, he was found under the influence of liquor at panchkuian Road and lost the service pistol, 12 live cartridges and one Leninyard allegedly while interfering in a fight between some people. He was got medically examined vide M.L.C. No.49985/2003 at lady Harding medical college and Smt. S.K. Hospital, New Delhi by the Local police. The Doctor opined that 'smell of Alcohol (+)' The above mentioned P.P. was out of station w.e.f. 18.9.2003 and it was the duty of Const. Ravinder Singh, No.10281/DAP to deposit the arms and ammunition in the Kot of E-block security Lines in compliance of instructions/briefing that when P.P. is out of station for 3 days, only one P.S.O. for day time will remain on duty from 9 AM to 5 PM. And other P.S.O.S. will report back to HQ/ E- Block Security Lines and deposit the arms and ammunition. But he did not do so. For these lapses, he has been placed under suspension w.e.f. 25.9.2003 vide D.D. N0.56-A, dated 25.9.2003/E-Block Security Lines read with order NO.2205- 25/HAP-9"' Bn. DAP, dated 3.10.2003.
Accordingly, an Enquiry under P.P.R. 6.22 was initiated. The committee submitted its enquiry report on 19.11.2003 with the conclusion that Const. Ravinder Singh, No. 10281/DAP is solely responsible for the loss of service weapon.
The above act on the part of Const. Ravinder Singh, NO.10281/DAP amounts to gross negligence, carelessness, misconduct and dereliction in the discharge of his official duties which renders him liable to be dealt with departmentally Signature Not Verified Digitaaly Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:18.11.2022 10:47:04 under the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules-1980. "
3. The Department conducted a enquiry in the matter and the Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed report on 31.08.2004 holding the Petitioner guilty of misconduct and finally a punishment order was passed on 08.12.2004. An Appeal was preferred in the matter and the Appellate Authority has also dismissed the Appeal on 15.02.2006.
4. The Petitioner, thereafter, had preferred the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), and the same has also been dismissed by an order dated 23.02.2007. The order passed by the CAT in Paragraphs 6 to 9 reads as under:
"6. The first & foremost question, which needs consideration, is whether penalty imposed upon applicant is based on evidence, material placed on record or suffers from any illegality etc. Applicant has strongly canvassed that findings of smell of alcohol had not been proved by Enquiry Officer but penalty was imposed by Disciplinary Authority ignoring the said findings as presuming that charge was proved, without communicating or supplying reasons of disagreement & affording an opportunity of hearing, which contention had been strongly contested by respondents. A bare perusal of summary of allegations will show that charge levelled against applicant could be bifurcated Into following that he:
i) left his duty along with service weapon without any intimation or prior permission of supervisory officer;
ii) was found under influence of liquor;
iii) lost service pistol, twelve live cartridges & one leninyard
7. Even if element of finding applicant under influence of liquor is ignored, other aspects of allegation are serious Signature Not Verified Digitaaly Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:18.11.2022 10:47:04 enough warranting major punishment. As per instructions in vogue, when protected person is out of station for three days, I PSO was supposed to report back to Headquarters / E-Block, Security Lines and he remains on duty only from 9.00 AM to
5.00 PM. In those circumstances, applicant should have deposited arms & ammunition immediately after 5.00 PM, when his duty ended. It is not in dispute that protected person was out of station w.e.f. 18.9.2003 and incident was of dated 24.9.2003. As per PW-8, 81 Ravi Kant's statement, P.3., Mandir Marg received a message at about 11.00 PM in the night of 24.9.2003, pursuant thereto he reached at Lady Harding Hospital, Panchkuian Road, where he met SHO, Connaught Place & applicant with some other people and got him medically examined.
Respondents in reply Para-5(h) have categorically & unequivocally stated that applicant was punished on two counts
- (1) Leaving the place of duty without the permission of senior officers, intervening in a scuffle under consumption of liquor and (2) loss of Govt. weapon & ammunition.
8. We have bestowed our careful consideration to the rival contentions raised by parties and are of considered opinion that enquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority drew a logical conclusion on each article of charge. There was no space for any surmises or conjectures. The impugned punishment though prima facie appears to be inflicting a harsh punishment but actually it is not so when it is looked & examined in view of the facts of the case at hand as applicant was guilty of not only of leaving the place of duty without permission of senior officers but also lost government weapon & ammunition. Such proved misconduct has to be taken seriously & cannot be either overlooked or ignored while deciding the quantum of penalty. Loss of weapon & live cartridges has to be viewed seriously, which requires strong punitive measures with deterrent effect. In such circumstances, award of major penalty is the only way to meet out the ends of justice. The punishment, imposed in these circumstances, is commensurate with the proved Signature Not Verified Digitaaly Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:18.11.2022 10:47:04 misconduct. We also find justification in the reasoning advanced by the Appellate Authority that the conduct & attitude of applicant towards discharge of official duties had been very casual and highly unbecoming of Police Officer. A disciplined force cannot tolerate such officials and commitment towards service is the hallmark of police organization expected from any police personnel. The minor contradictions here & there, as sought to be projected, cannot be allowed to either dismantle or reduce the effect of such grave misconduct. Mere recovery of Rs. 15,250/- from the applicant's salary being the cost of 9 MM Pistol along with 12 live cartridges & one leninyard, cannot wash off misconduct of a grave nature. What has been recovered is the cost of weapon lost and it under no circumstance could condone the misconduct. It is well settled law that findings arrived at, based on material on record, cannot be either ignored or re-appreciated by the Courts / Tribunal and it could substitute its own view for that of the competent authority. The punishment imposed is not either harsh or disproportionate. Non supply of statement recorded during preliminary enquiry or its report did not cause any prejudice. Applicant's contention that it was a mere negligence and not the misconduct cannot be accepted. Moreover, the orders passed by the authorities concerned were detailed, reasoned & analytical orders. We do not find any infraction of Rule 16(xii) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules. In our considered view the disciplinary authority did not disagree with the report of the enquiry office/ and, therefore, there was no necessity to record brief reasons for disagreement and its communication thereof. We also do not find any justification in other contentions raised by applicant, as noticed hereinabove particularly when we do not find any infraction of rule or law.
9. In view of discussion made hereinabove, finding no merit in the claim laid, OA is dismissed. No costs."
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued before this Court that the Respondent have not followed the prescribed procedure for conducting the enquiry, and that principles of natural justice and fairplay have been Signature Not Verified Digitaaly Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:18.11.2022 10:47:04 violated. Though the charge of smell of alcohol was not proved, it has wrongly been concluded by the Disciplinary Authority that the charge against the delinquent stands proved, and that the punishment is disproportionate to the guilt of the delinquent.
6. This Court has taken note of all the grounds canvassed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and has also heard Learned Counsel for the State as well .
7. Learned Counsel for the State has vehemently argued before this Court that the Petitioner has been dealt with great leniency. It is a case where a Constable left a „Y Category‟ Protectee without permission, and was later on found under the influence of liquor. He lost a very sophiscated weapon i.e. 9 mm Pistol along with 12 live cartridges. He has stated that loss of weapon and live cartridges is a very grave offence in armed forces, and in such cases, the only punishment which an employee deserves, is dismissal from service.
8. This Court has carefully gone through the documents on record and the ground canvassed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
9. The Enquiry Officer has conducted the proceedings strictly in consonance with Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. The principles of natural justice and fairplay have not been violated at all, and no procedural defect has been pointed before this Court by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in the matter.
10. The factum of misplacing the 9 mm Pistol along with 12 live cartridges were also proved during the Departmental Enquiry, and there is no dispute about the aforesaid incident which has taken place in the matter.
11. Mere recovery of Rs. 15,250/- being the cost of 9 mm Pistol along Signature Not Verified Digitaaly Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:18.11.2022 10:47:04 with 12 cartridges will not absolve the Petitioner‟s misconduct. The Petitioner has been dealt with great leniency, and, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority as well as the order passed by the CAT.
12. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J NOVEMBER 3, 2022 aks Signature Not Verified Digitaaly Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:18.11.2022 10:47:04