Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Inspector Abhey Singh vs The Commissioner Of Police on 30 August, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.4230/2012
Order reserved on 26th August, 2013
Order pronounced on 30th August 2013
Honble Shri Sudhir Kumar, Member (A)
Honble Shri A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J)
Inspector Abhey Singh
s/o Shri S S Singh, age 56 years
r/o C-6/6532, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi
Applicant
(None for applicant)
Versus
1. The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, MSO Building
IP Estate, New Delhi
2. Joint Commissioner of Police
Southern Region
Police Headquarters, IP Estate
MSO Building, New Delhi
3. Deputy Commissioner of Police
South West
Police Headquarters, IP Estate
MSO Building, New Delhi
Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Renu George)
O R D E R
Shri A K Bhardwaj:
In terms of notice No.5180/HAP I/SWD dated 19.6.2008, the applicant while posted as SHO, Najafgarh was called upon to show cause as to why his conduct should not be censured for his lapse of not going for patrolling in the area of Najafgarh Sub-Division till 1.15 AM in the night and again not moving to visit the spot, i.e., village Paprawat in the area of PS Najafgarh where a couple had committed suicide. In the show cause, it was also indicated that on repeated messages by the ACP, Najafgarh, he went to the spot in plain clothes whereas being night patrolling officer of the Sub-Division he should have been in the area for patrolling in uniform. In his reply to the show cause notice, the applicant explained that on the date of incident he was suffering from fever and was under the influence of medicines, thus reached the spot in plain clothes. Considering the reply to show cause notice given by the applicant as not satisfactory, the disciplinary authority confirmed the show cause and censured the conduct of the applicant. He thereafter preferred a detailed appeal to the appellate authority, i.e., Joint Commissioner of Police, South-West District, New Delhi pleading therein:-
In the evening of 26.5.2008, he was suffering from fever and vomiting, thus Dr. Vijay Yadav advised him to take rest for two days and he availed medical rest and was under the influence of medicines, He informed SI Jagat Singh I/C Control Room in the evening of 26-27.5.2008 regarding his illness and it was understood that the SI would perform night patrolling duty and the applicant would attend heinous calls only, thus SI K.C. Dogra was detailed for night patrolling duty, The call regarding suicide by husband and wife in village Paprawat was received at PS during the night of 26/27.5.2008 and he immediately reached the spot and attended the call in time. The PCR call was also attended by SI K.C. Dogra and ACP, Najafgarh; and Though, not in a position to attend the call but in view of gravity of call, he immediately reached at the spot without wearing the uniform.
2. The appellate authority heard the applicant in person also and viewed that it was not convinced with his plea as in case of being sick and advised to take medical rest by the doctor, it was necessary for him to obtain the prior permission from the competent authority to avail medical rest but he did not do so. The appellate authority also viewed that the applicant did not produce any medical papers/ prescription slip during his personal hearing to buttress the plea of ailment. The appellate authority further found that the applicant also did not move to the spot even after receiving the PCR call regarding committing suicide by the husband and wife and it was only on the repeated messages by the ACP/Najafgarh, he went to the spot in plain clothes whereas being night patrolling officer of the Sub-Division he should have been in the area for patrolling in uniform. The relevant excerpt of the order of the appellate authority reads as under:-
This is an order in the appeal filed by Inspr. Abhey Singh No.D-I/1045, hereinafter called the appellant, against the punishment of Censure awarded by disciplinary authority vide order No.6171-6191/HAP-I/SWD dated 17.8.09.
The facts of the case are that on 27/27.05.08 ACP/Najafgarh was night GO of South West distt. and the appellant, SHO/Najafgarh was deputed for night patrolling in the area of Najafgarh Sub-division. He did not go out for patrolling till 1.15 a.m. in the night. A PCR call regarding suicide by husband and wife in village Paprawat in the area of PS Najafgarh was also received but he did not move to visit the spot. On repeated message by ACP/Najafgarh, he went to the spot in plain cloths, whereas being night patrolling officer of the Sub-Division he should have been in the area for patrolling in uniform.
A show cause notice for Censure was issued to the appellant for his misconduct. The reply to the notice was not found satisfactory and disciplinary authority confirmed the proposed punishment vide order aforementioned. Hence this appeal.
I have gone through the appeal and other relevant records. I have also heard the appellant in person on 9.4.201o. In his appeal he has stated that on 26/27.5.08 he was deputed for night patrolling in the area of Sub-division Najafgarh. On that day he was suffering from fever and the Doctor advised him rest for two days. He availed medical rest in Police Station. A call regarding suicide by husband & wife in village Paprawat was received at Police Station in the night intervening 26/27-5-08, he was not in position to attend the call but in view of gravity of call he immediately reached at the spot without wearing the uniform.
I am not convinced with the pleas of the appellant. In case he was sick and was advised medical rest by the Doctor, it was necessary for him to obtain prior permission from the competent authority to avail medical rest, but he did not do so. Moreover, he did not produce any medical paper/prescription slip during the personal hearing in his support. A PCR call regarding committing suicide by husband & wife in the area of PS Najafgarh was received but he did not move to the spot. On repeated messages by ACP/Najafgarh he went to the spot in plain clothes, whereas being night patrolling officer of the Sub-division he should have been in the area for patrolling in uniform. He has been found negligent in the instant case for which the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is not excessive and the same is maintained. The appeal is rejected.
Le the appellant be informed accordingly. Thus the applicant has filed the present O.A. praying therein:
(i) To quash and set aside the show cause notice at Annexure A-2, order of punishment of censure at annexure A-2 and order of appellate authority at Annexure A-3 with all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion and pay and allowances.
(ii) Any other relief which this Honble Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant.
3. By an order dated 17.4.2013, the O.A. was directed to be listed for hearing on 22.7.2013. On the date fixed, the learned counsel for applicant sought an opportunity to file rejoinder, thus hearing was deferred to enable him to do so. On 12.8.2013, the applicant was represented by learned proxy counsel, who sought short adjournment to put forth his arguments but Ms. Renu George, learned counsel for respondents opposed the request with vehemence and insisted for hearing, thus she was allowed to make her submissions and the matter was heard in part. On 16.8.2013, though the O.A. was listed for hearing as part heard, both the learned counsel for parties reported their personal inconvenience and sought short accommodation, thus the hearing was deferred to 26.8.2013. On said date, learned counsel for applicant did not turn up and Ms. Renu George, learned counsel for respondents objected to any sort of indulgence by the Court in adjourning the hearing. She forcefully submitted that the procedure of the Court is regulated not by whims and fancies of any individual but by the rule of procedure and if a party to the proceedings does not turn up, the procedure prescribed in this regard need to be adhered to. In the circumstances, we proceeded to decide the matter under Rule 15 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
4. The salient grounds raised by the applicant in the O.A. are:
i) Both the disciplinary as well as appellate authorities did not consider the defence of the applicant while passing the orders of penalty and disposal of appeal,
ii) The fact that on 26/27.5.2008 the applicant was down with fever is well supported by the medical documents annexed with the O.A.,
iii) There are no such guidelines in terms of which it was incumbent upon the applicant to reach the spot of crime only in uniform,
iv) The view taken by the appellate authority that the plea of ailment of applicant was not supported by any medical documents is misplaced, as in his statutory appeal the applicant had mentioned the name of Dr. Vijay Yadav, who attended and advised him for rest, and also the nature of ailment,
v) There was nothing on record to show that there were repeated messages by the ACP, Najafgarh for the applicant to reach the spot and he reached the spot immediately while his such contention has not been dealt with by the appellate authority; and
vi) The applicant committed no misconduct, as he reached the spot despite ailment.
Besides the aforementioned grounds, the applicant also reiterated the plea raised by him in his appeal.
5. In the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents, the facts are narrated in detail and it is pleaded that:
a) Full opportunity was given to the applicant to defend himself. Along with reply to show cause notice, the applicant did not produce any medical documents/prescription slip,
b) He was given ample opportunity to appear in the orderly room of the disciplinary authority but he did not present himself despite efforts,
c) The ACP, Najafgarh confirmed that the applicant had not sent any medical papers to him and with his appeal also, the applicant did not produce any documents to substantiate his plea of ailment,
d) Plea of the applicant that in the event of emergency, there was no need to obtain any permission to avail medical rest is misconceived. Even if he was ill he should have informed about the same to senior officials,
e) Main allegation against the applicant is that when he was deputed for night patrolling, he did not go out for patrolling till 1.15 AM in the night and on a PCR call regarding suicide by husband and wife in village Paprawat in the area of PS Najafgarh, he did not move to spot and only after repeated messages by ACP, Najafgarh, he went to the spot in plain clothes, whereas being night patrolling officer of the Sub Division, he should have been in the area for patrolling in uniform.
6. In the rejoinder filed by him, the applicant has reiterated the stand taken by him in appeal as well as in O.A.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
8. We do not find any force in the contention of the applicant that there are no guidelines, which cast duty on the applicant as night GO to reach the spot of the incident only in uniform. Once a uniform is prescribed for any particular post or position, the incumbent of such post needs to wear the same. When the applicant reached the spot of incident, he was certainly performing the duty of Police Inspector and he ought to have been in uniform only. Nevertheless when in his detailed appeal the applicant made reference to certain arrangement during the night of the incident and had also specified the name of doctor, who attended him when he was suffering from fever, the appellate authority ought to have commented upon such plea. Certainly, the appellate authority could not have examined the Sub Inspector Jagat Singh or Dr. Vijay Yadav or Sub Inspector K C Dogra to verify the authenticity of the stand taken by the applicant in the appeal. But when in minor penalty proceedings no departmental inquiry is held, the stand taken by the delinquent officer in his appeal need to be dealt with. The appellate authority could have expressed its view and finding regarding such plea and recorded reasons for the same. When the appellate authority has taken the view that the applicant could not produce any medical paper / prescription slip during the personal hearing to substantiate his plea of ailment and he had also not taken permission from the competent authority to avail medical rest, it could not comment upon the various pleas raised by the applicant in his appeal. Though the view taken by the appellate authority that the applicant had not taken prior permission to remain on medical rest was sufficient to dismiss the appeal. But justice should not only be done but seem to be done.
9. In the circumstances, the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority for considering and dealing with the pleas raised by the applicant in paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of his appeal. O.A. stands disposed of. No costs.
( A.K. Bhardwaj ) ( Sudhir Kumar ) Member (J) Member (A) /sunil/