Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Mahesh Narain vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi on 13 May, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA NO.1901/2008 New Delhi, this the 13th day of May, 2009 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE M. RAMACHANDRAN, VICE-CHAIRMAN (J) HONBLE SHRI SHAILENDRA PANDEY, MEMBER (A) Shri Mahesh Narain Posted at : P.S.I.P.Estate New Delhi. R/o 1/18, Roop Nagar Delhi. Applicant (By Advocate: None) Versus Govt. of NCT Delhi Through the Administrator Lt. Governor Raj Niwas Delhi. The Commissioner of Police Police Head Quarters, I.P. Estate New Delhi. Additional Dy. Commissioner of Police Central District, Darya Ganj Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mrs. Renu George) ORDER By Shailendra Pandey, Member (A):
None appeared on behalf of the applicant on earlier occasion, viz., 24.03.2009, when the Bench passed an order that rejoinder if any shall be filed within two days before 29.04.2009, failing which right of the applicant to file the rejoinder would be forfeited. It is seen that no rejoinder has been filed. Today also, none appeared for the applicant even on the second call. We have proceeded to hear the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents as authorized by Rule 15 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
2. Through this OA, the applicant has challenged the orders passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police dated 1.6.2007 (Annexure A-1) imposing the punishment of censure on him and order passed by the appellate authority, Joint Commissioner of Police, dated 21.11.2007 (Annexure A2) which confirmed the same.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on a complaint of one Shri Inderjeet Singh s/o Shri Jaswant Singh, a vigilance inquiry was conducted which revealed that an incident of theft had occurred on 16.08.2005 at the residence of the complainant of which an information was given to the local police at PS Karol Bagh. Thereafter, the applicant visited the spot and collected some house breaking tools from the place of the incident but he neither called the crime team nor registered the case on that day and kept the matter pending with him. On 20.08.2005, an FIR No.407 under Section 407/380 IPC was registered and investigated by him which was later on transferred to SI Ram Swaroop who sent it as untraced on 4.6.2006. For not taking timely and proper action, a show cause notice for censure was issued to the applicant on 12.12.2006, and after taking his reply into account, the disciplinary authority confirmed the proposed punishment of censure and issued the impugned order dated 1.6.2007 (Annexure A1). Thereafter, the applicant made an appeal to the Joint Commissioner of Police which was rejected vide order dated 21.11.2007 (Annexure A2).
4. The applicant has raised various grounds in his OA at Para 5 of the OA and stated that no cognizable offence can be said to have been committed as the theft was by one brother as against his elder brother who was living in the same house, that registering of an FIR is the duty of the SHO and not the duty of the applicant; that after registration of the FIR, the investigation was transferred to SI Ram Swaroop who filed the `untraced report in the Court and as such it was the duty of the SI Ram Swaroop to initiate the steps and the applicant again had no power to take any step with reference to the same and that he has been unnecessarily victimized without any fault of his.
5. The respondents, in their counter reply, have rebutted all these grounds and have stated that the applicant was awarded the punishment of censure after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
7. As pointed out by the respondents, it was the duty of the applicant to intimate the clear facts to his senior officer(s) and take action as per law but the applicant had kept the matter pending with him, did not call the crime team nor register the case on the day of the theft and eventually registered it after 4 days of the incident on 20.08.2005, which amounts to negligence on the part of the applicant. In the case of Government servants entrusted with duties towards the public, it is important that total efficiency and dedication to duty be maintained and all efforts to promote discipline and efficiency on the part of the administration be allowed to be taken. The orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are also well reasoned and speaking orders and the same have been passed after considering the facts and circumstances of the applicants case. Therefore, no interference in the matter is warranted. The OA is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Shailendra Pandey) (M.Ramachandran)
Member (A) Vice-Chairman (J)
/nsnrsp/