Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Inspector Gurmeet Singh vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 24 May, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No. 1640/2009 New Delhi, this the 24th day of May, 2010 Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman Honble Dr. R.C. Panda, Member (A) Inspector Gurmeet Singh, No.D-I/866, R/O C-8, Police colony, Sector XII, R. K. Puram, New Delhi presently posted as SHO, Punjabi Bagh. Applicant (By Advocate: Ms. Jasvinder Kaur, Advocate) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Joint Commissioner of Police Southern Range, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, South West District, New Delhi. ...Respondents O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Gurmeet Singh, Inspector in Delhi Police, through present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, calls in question order dated 26.12.2009 passed by disciplinary authority inflicting punishment of censure upon him as also order dated 22.04.2010, vide which his appeal against the order aforesaid has since been dismissed.
2. The brief facts as set out in the Application and accompanying documents would reveal that a joint show cause notice against six police officials of police post Madipur, as may appear to be the whole staff of the said police post, for censure came to be issued on 21.09.2008. Out of six, against two, namely, HC Ranjeet Singh, mess incharge and cook Asha Devi, the notice was dropped. Inspector Gurmeet Singh, the applicant, was one of the six against whom the show cause notice was issued. His reply having not been found satisfactory, show cause notice against him has been confirmed, vide order dated 17.12.2008. His appeal against the order aforesaid has since been dismissed, vide order dated 20.04.2009. Aggrieved of the orders aforesaid, applicant filed OA No. 1533/2009, which was disposed of, vide orders dated 16.11.2009, operative part whereof reads thus:-
5. In our considered view, the impugned orders being cryptic and non speaking, without even taking into consideration the explanation furnished by the applicant, need to be set aside. So ordered. The respondents would, however, be at liberty to pass fresh order, but if they do that exercise, the order has to be speaking and if at all, the explanation given by the applicant is to be rejected, reasons therefor have to be recorded.
3. A show cause notice of censure was issued to the applicant, SI Prahlad Singh, HC Ranjeet Singh, HC Ram Rattan, W/Ct. Rajni and Cook Asha Devi on 2.9.2008 on the allegation that surprise inspection/checking of police stations and police posts was carried out by officials of vigilance branch during the period from 25.7.2008 to 31.7.2008, and that on 30.7.2008 at 11.30 a.m., the officials of vigilance branch checked PP Madipur and found the following discrepancies:-
1. Mess was running but found very dirty.
2. DO and Emergency Officers were not carrying arms.
3. Duty Officer/W/Const. Rajni, No.2005/W was in improper uniform and without arms.
4. The applicant responded to the show cause notice, vide his reply dated 04.10.2008. He gave his explanation with regard to all three discrepancies pointed out by the vigilance branch, as mentioned above. However, the explanation, with regard to the allegation was not found satisfactory and punishment of censure was inflicted upon the applicant by the disciplinary authority, vide order dated 17.12.2008, which was confirmed by the appellate authority while rejecting his appeal against the order aforesaid, which, as mentioned above, were set aside while disposing of applicants earlier OA No.1533/2009. The impugned orders, referred to above having been passed by disciplinary and appellate authorities consequent upon directions issued by this Tribunal, as reproduced above, have been challenged in this Original Application.
5. We have heard learned counsel representing the applicant and with her assistance examined the records of the case.
6. A notice, as mentioned above, was issued to six persons including the applicant. Insofar as HC Ranjeet Singh and Cook Asha Devi are concerned, the explanation furnished by them was accepted. It was pleaded on behalf of the two named above that one Coy outside force was staying in PP Madipur on the eve of Independence Day arrangement 2008, and they were using PP Mess for distributing food and stationed in dining hall of mess due to shortage of space. If the explanation given by the two named above with regard to the first discrepancy pointed out in the show cause notice pertaining to mess being run was found dirty was not found satisfactory, the same would not hold against the applicant as well. Insofar as HC Ram Rattan and W/Const. Rajni are concerned, the explanation furnished by them was not found satisfactory and they were also censured. Insofar as SI Prahlad Singh is concerned, he did not even care to file his reply to the show cause notice and, therefore, the same was confirmed against him.
7. Disciplinary authority while dealing with the case afresh pursuant to directions of this Tribunal, it is not in dispute, has passed a speaking order dealing with the explanation furnished by the applicant. Insofar as the second allegation, as it pertains to DO/emergency officers were not carrying arms, is concerned, the applicant had urged that HC Ram Rattan was detailed as emergency officer from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. at PP Madipur. He could not take arms as MHC (M) had come to PS for sending the case property in the court for evidence and key of Malkhana was kept with him. Some case property of PS/Punjabi Bagh were kept at P.S. and some were kept at P.P. Madipur. In the meantime, HC Ram Rattan got three PCR calls and he, being emergency officer, attended those calls. He had asked MHC (M) for giving arms. In the meantime, officer of vigilance branch visited PP Madipur. This explanation of the applicant has been rejected by observing that HC Ram Rattan was detailed as emergency officer from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. at PP Madipur, and it was his duty to get the arms issued from Malkhana while reporting for duty at 8.00 a.m. It is further observed that the applicant could not justify why MHC (M) left the PP for Police Station without issuing the arms to HC Ram Rattan, and further the plea raised by the applicant that HC Ram Rattan got three PCR calls and being emergency officer had attended those calls is also not tenable as first call was received at 9.00 a.m. i.e. one hour after he reported for duty. Insofar as explanation furnished by the applicant with regard to W/Const. Rajni, who was not found in proper uniform is concerned, it was stated that due to rainy day the pattern uniform of W/Const. Rajni got drenched on the way when she was coming to PP Madipur and, therefore, she put on khakhi salwar kameej. This explanation was rejected by observing that it was very unlikely that woman constable was carrying another set of uniform which did not get wet during the rainy day and she could change it as soon as her pattern uniform got wet while going to PP Madipur. It was further observed that this was an excuse given to cover up lapse on her part otherwise she could have given this explanation to the checking officer at the relevant time itself. It is pertinent to mention that insofar as the first discrepancy with regard to mess being run was found dirty is concerned, the applicant has not been held guilty, and surely, he could not be because those who were supposed to keep it clean had been exonerated on the explanation furnished by them. The applicant, however, cannot escape from his responsibility as DO/emergency officer was not carrying arms. The explanation given by the applicant in that behalf, as mentioned above, has been rejected and the reasons given by the disciplinary authority appear to be correct. It has been observed by the disciplinary authority that HC Ram Rattan has attended to first PCR call at 9.00 a.m. whereas the arms were supposed to be given to the concerned officer at 8.00 a.m., and there was enough time to supply arms to the concerned officer. Surely, insofar as improper uniform of W/Const. Rajni is concerned, the applicant would not be responsible for the same as it rather appears that while dealing with the plea aforesaid, the explanation as given by W/Const. Rajni has not been accepted. It is not so urged by learned counsel for the applicant, but one may give benefit of doubt to the applicant with regard to the allegation against W/Const. Rajni, as he cannot be held guilty of not putting on proper uniform by W/Const. Rajni on the day when surprise inspection/checking of police stations and police posts was carried out by the officers of vigilance branch. However, insofar as the second discrepancy pointed out in the show cause notice with regard to DO/emergency officers, who were not carrying arms is concerned, the explanation given by the applicant has been found to be incorrect. Non-carrying of arms by police officer at the police station could result into a serious incident and the applicant being inspector incharge of the police station was supposed to ensure that DO/emergency officers carry proper arms. Though applicant had not furnished any other explanation, yet counsel for the applicant, however, points out that in the appeal that came to be filed against the order dated 26.12.2009, the applicant also raised a plea that in similar circumstances, a show cause notice was issued to SHO, Paschim Vihar, Inspector Sanjeev Kumar Tomar and W/HC Sushila on the allegations that surprise checking/inspection was carried out by officers of vigilance branch by sending decoy complainant and found that W/HC was not carrying arms and she even did not lodge the complaint. SHO was not present in his office and emergency officer was not carrying arms as well. The said show cause notice against Inspector Sanjeev Kumar was dropped. This plea was raised in the Memorandum of Appeal but it has not been taken care of by the appellate authority. Counsel says that it is a case of discrimination inasmuch as the applicant has been inflicted with the punishment of censure whereas upon the same set of allegations other inspector has been exonerated. We find no merit in the aforesaid contention of the counsel as admittedly this point was not raised before the disciplinary authority. It came to be raised for the first time before the appellate authority. Once, there is no mention of this plea in the appellate order, presumption arises that the same may not have been pressed. It is not the case of the applicant as well that such plea was indeed raised but the appellate authority did not give any verdict on the same. Be that as it may, we have ourselves examined the facts of the case, referred to by the counsel for the applicant. Order with regard to Inspector Sanjeev Kumar Tomar has been placed on records by the applicant which would show that the show cause notice came to be issued to Inspector Sanjeev Kumar Tomar, SI Om Prakash and W/HC Sushila on the allegations that surprise inspection/checking of police post was carried out by the officers of vigilance branch/DE Cell, Delhi during the period from 10.10.2008 to 16.10.2008. On 15.10.2008 at 1.20 P.M. the officer of vigilance branch/DE Cell sent a decoy complainant to P.S. Paschim Vihar for lodging a report but W/HC Sushila did not lodge the complaint of decoy and sent him to emergency officers room. She was also not carrying arms during surprise checking. SHO was not found present in his office. Durng inspection, SI Om Prakash was not carrying arms as well as W/T set and also not found in proper uniform. It is interesting to note that on the explanation given by Sanjeev Kumar Tomar that on 15.10.2008 at 1.20 PM he was on patrolling duty in the area of police station being the timings of closer of schools and he further stated that specific directions were given to all the staff for having arms and WT set with them while on duty. The said explanation was not found convincing enough, but inasmuch he was not present in the police station, the disciplinary authority warned him to be more careful in future with a view to improve upon. Insofar as others are concerned, the show cause notice was confirmed against them. It is thus not a case where Sanjeev Kumar Tomar has been let off without infliction of any punishment. Counsel for the applicant is not right even on facts when she states that Sanjeev Kumar Tomar was exonerated. It appears that even though taken, the point with regard to discrimination was not raised before the appellate authority as the same would have found no favour.
8. Finding no merit in this Original Application, the same is dismissed.
(Dr. R.C. Panda) (V.K. Bali) Member (A) Chairman /naresh/