Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Ajay Singh S/O Shri Keshri Singh vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 17 January, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 291/00012/2014 Date of Order: 17th January, 2014 CORAM : HONBLE DR. K.B. SURESH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HONBLE MR. ANIL KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Ajay Singh S/o Shri Keshri Singh, aged about 35 years, R/o village Vilod, Tehsil Kama, District Bharatpur and presently residing at 75, Vrindawan Vihar, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur. ....Applicant Mr. Indresh Sharma, counsel for the applicant. V E R S U S 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi. 2. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan, Main Building, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 3. State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Main Building, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ....Respondents O R D E R
Per Dr. K.B. Suresh, Judicial Member Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
2. The applicant is a 2009 batch officer of All Indian Police Service in the Rajasthan Cadre, who was appointed as Assistant Superintendent of Police, North City, Ajmer on 14.10.2011. Apparently, he was Investigating Officer in an FIR No. 8/12 of Kishangang Police Station. The allegation was raised that at his investigation, an attempt was made by a team of police officers attached to him to obtain illegal gratification by offering threat and extortion against one Bhawani Singh and some others. Charge-sheet was apparently filed against four others on 22.03.2012 but then the investigation was kept pending against three other accused. The applicant would say that these three other accused were Uma Solanki, Sandeep Sourya and Prakash Sharma. However, Bhawani Singh apparently on being threatened with consequences approached the Anti Corruption Bureau of Rajasthan Police and they laid a trap for Prem Singh, who was caught red handed when the trap was sprung. Thereafter, he admitted that he was acting under the behest of the applicant herein.
3. Therefore, in this serious matrix of events, the applicant had apparently moved for exoneration before the concerned trial court and produced as evidence the order passed by the said court.
4. But in fact the applicant had filed earlier OA No. 39/2013, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to him to file fresh vide order dated 22.03.2013.
5. Apparently, the trial court found that under provisions of Section 239 of Cr.P.C. while examining the sanction issued by the respective Government under Section 197 Cr.P.C., he did not find sufficient sanction to warrant a prosecution under Section 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act. So it seems that he was exonerated under Section 7 and 13 of the P.C. Act while prosecution sanction was held to be valid under other cognizable section of IPC. Section 7 of the P.C. Act deals in it a situation wherein any gratification for showing or for-bearing to show a favour or dis-favour to any person or any service or dis-service to any person. In Trilok Chand Jain vs. State of Delhi, reported in AIR 1977 SC 666, the Honble Apex Court has held that the incapacity of Government servant to show any favour or rendering in his service does not necessarily take the case out of purview of Section 7. When a sanction had been issued under 197, normally it appears that the sanction is issued for a cumulative spectrum of offences which it covers when such a sanction has been given by an authority and if at all some relevant portions of it seems to be omitted, a direction is to be issued to cover the omission as the omission will only be irregular, at all but not illegal. This is particularly so as a trap has been set as correctly sprung. But anyway that matter of the matrix will be taken hereafter by other judicial authority, so we do not propose to dwell much on it.
6. But vide Annexure A/13 dated 28.10.2013, the applicant had filed a request for revoking the suspension and submitted that the trapped Assistant Sub Inspector, Prem Singh, had made him also a co-accused but as the applicant had sent a final report on 13.06.2012 and the trap took place on 21.06.2012. As the incident took place on 21.06.2012, therefore, it appears to be that it is his case that the said Bhawani Singh was not actually an accused till then and therefore there was no reason for him to be a catalyst in a trap being taken but then of course this is a matter to be proven or otherwise in a criminal trial only but for that matter, Section 7 canvassed incidents as such as well as the word service and dis-service mentioned in it covers the non-inclination of an investigation officer to bring in the actual accused also in the field especially in view of the applicants stand that the said Bhawani Singh also has been a beneficiary of public money insofar as he had also received bribe out of public money. If the applicant believes that the story is found correct that he should have charge-sheeted the said Bhawani Singh also, therefore, even by a stretch of imagination it can be said that a forbearance as mentioned in Section 7 would be singularly lacking.
7. The applicant would say that he was trapped in ACB case through a conspiracy, though a taint of conspiracy to have a meaning there must be a team of conspirators with the ACB also forming the part of conspiracy, therefore, if malice and malafides are to be shown, it is to be shown diligently and specifically. We went through this application to find out whether any such conspiracy can be focused on the ACB who initiated this issue. This is now to be examined in greater public interest.
8. But the applicant would state in his request that focus of the revenge is having nexus in the already arrested five accused. Two of the accused were underground and the conspiracy was designed by them and they have used Bhawani Singh as a tool with the active help of ACB as well. But if it is correct then having found out Bhawani Singh at least partially in engagement of the issue, the question would remain then why he was not arrested. But then he goes to say that Bhawani Singh was not related to this file in any manner. But then it is the same applicant, who says earlier that Bhawani Singh is also a recipient of the beneficiaries under the offence. The applicant personally explains that like Bhawani Singh there are thousands of others and senior officers advised him that making the party array larger will be of no consequence. The IGP Rakesh Nirvan should be able to explain this further.
9. The applicant claims that no recovery was made from him and his impleadment was only on the basis of a statement of ASI Prem Singh. He would say that as per Section 30, statement of co-accused does not have an evidential value.
10. The applicant says that following his exoneration under Section 7 and 13 of P.C. Act, the only charge remain is under Section 384, which is not grievous in nature. He would say that he has already spent 1= years under suspension and the trial may take a long time, therefore, he had requested for the discretionary powers of the department to revoke his suspension.
11. The great jurist Professor Robson in his book Justice and Administrative Law, published by Greenwood Press in 1951 page 413 notes as follows: -
In all civilized countries the judge must, in fact, possess certain conceptions of what is socially desirable, or at least acceptable, and his decisions, when occasions arise, must be guided by these conceptions. In this sense, judges are and must be biased . It is a simple fact that a man who had not a standard of moral values which approximated broadly to the accepted opinions of the day, who had no beliefs as to what is harmful to society and what beneficial, who had no bias in favour of marriage as against promiscuous sexual relations, honesty as against deceit, truthfulness as against lying; who did not think wealth better than poverty, courage better than cowardice, constitutional government more desirable than anarchy, would not be tolerated as a judge on the bench of any Western country.
12. Therefore, adjudicatory bodies are called upon to decide on morality of legality as well. The Honble Madras High Court in Mohambaram vs. Jayavelu reported in 1970 Mad 63 at page 73 has held that there is no such thing as absolute or untrammeled discretion, the nursery of despotic power, in a democracy based on the rule of law. Therefore, what in a sense will constitute the rule of law application in this case. The Vadhawa Commission report had underlined the nexus between criminal and the police and the urgent need to curb the same. Even though, the applicant had pointed out on one limb of allegations alleged against him. We feel in greater and large public interest, the other limb would be more important for the concerned authorities. When an allegation is brought out then a Senior Police Officer might be running in a criminal operation even though it appears as part of statement issued by a Police Officer unless these are examined in full.
13. The Honble Apex Court in Km. Neelima Misra vs. Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1402, held that the holder of a power has to act properly for the purpose for which the power has been conferred. Therefore, viewed in that respect, the review committee seems to have failed to prima facie consider the issue in the lager public interest, therefore, in this respect, the ground A seems to be incorrect. There was urgent necessity to keep the applicant out of duty as of them as the allegations raised against him cumulative destroy the confidence of general public in the police administration. If a person in-charge of District Police Administration or his immediate junior is alleged to be involved in extortion, it raises so many issues of significant colour. The Government of Rajasthan would not have ignored such an issue at any point of time and the suspending authority also has therefore acted correctly. The applicant raises a question that whether if the review committee coram was proper and whether this issue was objectively considered. Still the decision will not be invalid because the review committee recommendations are only a recommendation and still the authority has to apply its mind.
14. It is to be noted in this connection that even when applicant is on suspension, he will be paid his subsistence allowance. He may not be enjoying the power of prosecution or persecution as the case may be but then in the entire concept of the nature if the concerned authority think that it is necessary to keep him out of the way of prosecution at least, we fail to understand how it can be faulted at this juncture.
15. Therefore, in the light of the constitutional mandate of fair governance and absolute integrity required in the police force and in the light of the established cloud of suspicion against the applicant, we feel that it is our duty to negate this request as the suspension order was issued correctly and was extended correctly. The apparent exoneration on a technical issue is not an issue which should be treated as an absolute bar any how this will appropriately be considered by the other superior authority as well. The review committee seems to have acted correctly and in response of call off duty impressed upon them. Therefore, the Original Application fails and must only be dismissed.
But the applicant maintains that on earlier occasions seven complaints were filed against the same accused in different fora but all were rejected as of Civil Nature. There is some ground in the contentions of the applicant. Therefore, he is permitted to file a detailed representation before the Chief Secretary.
16. In consequence, we would issue the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan the following directions as well (i). If the State finds that it is own police force is unable to find out the nexus and extent of the allegations against the applicant for any reason then it may consider other alternative as well. But the alleged juncture or attempt at cover up by ACB shall also be enquired into.
(ii). Speedy steps must be taken to assure the general public that the police administration will be pure as driven snow, it might be appropriate if matters are discussed in a joint meeting with the Home Secretary and the DG and IG of Police and appropriate steps to be taken. In fact, they may form themselves into a committee to look into this matter at the earliest.
(iii). It is a constitutional duty of public servant to take note of seriousness of the allegations against the applicant and the ACB and to take proper steps. Appropriate emergent steps are called for from all Government authorities to stem this with immediate effect.
17. The Original Application is, therefore, disposed off with the above direction to the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan. No costs.
(ANIL KUMAR) (DR. K.B. SURESH) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER kumawat