Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sub-Inspector Jai Prakash Meena vs Govt. Of N.C.T.D on 28 April, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
OA NO.1499/2008
NEW DELHI THIS THE 28th DAY OF APRIL, 2011
HONBLE MR. M.L. CHAUHAN, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MR. SHAILENDRA PANDEY, MEMBER (A)
Sub-Inspector Jai Prakash Meena,
Working as Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police,
S/o Shri Kanhiya Lal Meena,
R/o C-II, Type-III,
Police Colony, Keshav Puram,
Delhi-35. Applicant.
(By Advocate: Shri Sachin Chauhan)
VERSUS
1. Govt. of N.C.T.D.,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate,
M.S.O. Building,
New Delhi.
2. The Joint Commissioner of Police,
New Delhi range,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate,
M.S.O. Building, New Delhi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
North East,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate,
M.S.O. Building, New Delhi. Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri Chandramani Bhardwaj, proxy for Ms. Rashmi
Chopra)
:ORDER:
MR. M.L. CHAUHAN, MEMBER (J):
The applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs:-
(i) To set aside the impugned order of punishment at Annexure A-1, A-2 and A-3 and the restore back the applicants his increments along with pay and allowances as it was never there with all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion and pay and allowances.
(ii) To set aside the order dated 05.06.2008 whereby the name of the applicant has being kept in secret list of doubtful integrity and order dated 12.03.2010 whereby the representation of the applicant for removing the name from secret list of doubtful integrity has been rejected.
(iii) Any other relief which this Honble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant was issued summary of allegations whereby gravemen of charges against the applicant was that while posted as Sub-Inspector (Executive) at PS Civil Lines/North Distt., he was entrusted with the investigation of case FIR No.387/98 u/s 279/337/304-A IPC and the investigation in respect of the said case was conducted by him in a very casual manner. Subsequently, the case was sent as untraced by him without making any sincere efforts to trace the alleged vehicle. Further, allegation was that Inquiry Officer failed to cite the concerned PCR officials as PWs, who attended the call and noted the number of the bus. On the basis of these allegations, departmental enquiry was initiated and ultimately the Inquiry Office in the concluded part of the inquiry report has held that the applicant was new Police Officer posted at Police Station just after completion of practical training. He should have been guided by the then SHO and further recommended that lenient view be taken in the instant case. However, the disciplinary authority vide impugned order dated 30.01.2008 (Annexure A-1), agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, inflicted a punishment of withholding of two increments for 2 years for his gross misconduct. The order passed by the disciplinary authority was also affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 13.05.2008 (Annexure A-2). These orders are under challenge in this OA and the applicant has also made grievance to another order dated 05.06.2008 whereby his name has been kept in the secret list of persons of doubtful integrity, followed by another order dated 12.3.2010 whereby his representation regarding placing of his name in secret list was rejected.
3. The notice of this application was given to the respondents. The facts, as stated above, have not been disputed by the respondents. They have tried to justify their action on the basis of the reasoning given in the order passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities as also based upon the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant, while drawing our attention to the summary of allegation (Annexure A-4), argued that the summary of allegation is in two parts. One part is for lack of investigation of the case and submission of untraced report, whereas the second part is concerned for citing of PCR officials as PWs when subsequent investigation was carried by another person for which he was not at all responsible. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, he could not have been held guilty of the second part of the charge and as such punishment imposed on the basis of findings recorded by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority based upon the summary of allegation cannot be sustained.
6 Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn our attention to the order dated 30.10.2006 whereby for the latter part of the allegation i.e. for not citing the PCR officials as a witness and also failed to get original PCR record submitted in the court, the Investigating Officer i.e. Shri Harish Chander, who has carried the investigation, subsequently was issued a show cause notice for censure and finally warning was issued for the said misconduct. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, it was not permissible for the respondents to impose the major penalty on the applicant for not investigating the case properly at the first instance and submitting untraced report especially when according to the learned counsel for the applicant untraced report was signed by the SHO and also that for almost identical misconduct subsequent I.O. i.e. Shri Harish Chander was given only warning.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record. At this stage, it will be useful to quote summary of allegation against the applicant which find mentioned at Annexure A-4 page 25 of the paper book and thus reads:-
It is alleged against SI (Exe.) Jai Prakash Meena No.D/3726 while posted at PS Civil Lines/North Distt. that the investigation of case FIR No.387/98 u/s 279/337/304 A IPC P.S. Civil Lines was conducted by him in a very casual manner resulting the accused was acquitted by the Court. As per FIR, a PCR call was received at PP Majnu Ka Tilla regarding accident at outer ring road near Harphool Singh Akhara. The PCR Gypsy noted the number of the bus as DBP 8438 while the DD writer of PP Majnu Ka Tilla noted down the number of the bus as DBP 8438. The case was sent as untraced by him without making any sincere efforts to the trace the alleged vehicle.
The trial of the case was conducted in the Court of the concerned M.M. and PW,s were examined. After examining the PW,s/evidence on record the M.M. passed the order. The Ld. M.M. has pointed out that PWs, the deceased, had initially stated that there was no fault of anyone in the said accident which is trustworthy and reliable. The Ld. M.M. mentioned that the number of the defaulted bus was in PCR record but the IO failed to collect the same and to seize the bus. The I.O. further failed to cite the concerned PCR officials as PW,s who attended the call and noted the number of the bus. The Ld. M.M. has pointed out that the prosecution story is full of infirmities and contradictions.
The above act on the part of SI Jai Prakash Meena No.3726 amounts to gross misconduct, negligence which renders him liable for departmental actions under the provision of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, Punishment under Section -21 of Delhi Police Act, 1978. (Emphasis supplied)
8. Thus, as can be seen from the portion as quoted above, two allegations have been leveled against the applicant; one part was regarding not investigating the aforesaid FIR in a proper manner and submitting untraced report. The second part was regarding not including the PCR officials as PWs, who attended the call and noted the number of the bus when the challan was presented by the second Investigating Officer, when the correct number of bus was traced from the PCR record after the lapse of 9 months and after giving notice under Section 133 to Motor Vehicle Act accused was arrested. It may be noted here that the trial court has stated that it is amazing that PCR gypsy had recored the number of the bus but the inquiry officer did not care to take the number of the bus for almost nine months and no action was taken and in fact the case was sent as untraceable. On the basis of the observation made by the learned Magistrate that the summary of allegation was issued against the applicant and simultaneously for the latter part the charge show cause notice was issued to the SI Harish Chander for imposing the minor penalty for censure. At this stage, it will be useful to quote the order dated 30.10.2006 in respect of SI Harish Chander, which thus reads:-
It was alleged against SI Harish Chander No.D-3528 that while he posted at P.S. Civil Lines has investigated a case FIR No.387/98 u/s 279/304-A IPC, P.S. Civil Lines. The trial of the case was held in the concerned court and the Ld. M.M. Pointed out the following infirmities and defects in the investigation on the part of him that he had failed to cite the PCR officials as a witness and also failed to get the original PCR record submitted in the court. It clearly showed negligence on his part and lack of interest in his work.
The above act on his part amounted to gross carelessness and dereliction in discharge of his official duties, which rendered him subject to punishment under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.
A Show Cause Notice for censure was issued to SI Harish Chander No.D3528 vide this office bearing No.2537-39/R-ACP/Subzi Mandi dated 20.09.2006 and he was directed to submit his reply within 15 days.
He filed his written reply. On perusal of his reply and hearing in person he is hereby advised to be more careful in future.
9. Thus, in view what has been stated above, we are of the view that the applicant could not be held responsible for the second part of the charge i.e. regarding citing of the PCR officials as PWs and as it was for the second Inquiry Officer against whom the stricture were passed by the judicial magistrate to the effect that the original PCR record has not been made available as well as the Inquiry Officer has also failed to cite the concerned PCR officials as a witness when the challan was presented. It is not in dispute that the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority had taken into consideration the summary of allegation leveled against the applicant, including the fact that he has not bothered to examine the PCR officials as a witness in the case and thus inflicted the major penalty as referred above.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn our attention to the conclusion given by the Inquiry Officer in its inquiry report, which thus reads:-
Conclusion:- I have gone through the entire evidence on record. Charges against S.I. J.P. Meena is proved. However, it is worth mentioning that S.I. J.P. Meena was new police officer, posted in Police station just after completion of practical training. He should have been guided by the then SHO. From the very beginning the case was not having proper evidence, sufficient to prove guilt of the accused. The Court had relied upon the initial statement of injured in which he had stated that motor cycle hit the bus while he had taken left turn and did not want any legal action. A lenient view may be taken keeping in view the facts mentioned above.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the present case untraced report was signed by the SHO and the applicant has just completed the training and it was the first case regarding investigation. Thus, the SHO cannot also be absolved from his responsibility and in case investigation was defective, it was incumbent upon the SHO to direct the applicant to re-investigate the matter by examining the PCR record as well as examining the witness. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, it is a case where the applicant has been discriminated by imposing major punishment thereby absolving the SHO as well as subsequently absolving one Shri Harish Chander, SI, who conducted the further investigation.
12. We have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. We are of the view that in the totality of the facts and circumstances as stated above and in view of the conclusion by the Inquiry Officer as well as the order dated 30.10.2006 whereby Shri Harish Chander, who subsequently investigated the matter and did not produce the original record of PCR before the trial court and also did not cite the PCR officials as a witness, and was let off simply by recording warning, we are of the view that major punishment of withholding of two increments for 2 years as imposed upon the applicant is harsh.
13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.01.2008 (Annexure A-1) passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the subsequent order dated 19.05.2008 passed by the appellate authority (Annexure A-2) are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East Distt, Delhi to pass fresh order regarding the quantum of punishment to be imposed upon the applicant. Further, we are of the view that the case of the applicant for placing his name in the secret list of doubtful integrity is also required to be reconsidered in the light of the order to be passed by the disciplinary authority on remand and in case, appropriate authority is still of the view that name of the applicant is to be placed in the secret list in terms of the Para 6 of the standing order no.265, the order should specifically state the sub para under which the case of the applicant is covered as it appears that the name of the applicant was placed in the secret list solely on the ground that that major penalty was imposed upon the applicant. Till such, exercise is not taken the respondents are restrained to give effect to the order dated 05.06.2008 whereby the name of the applicant has been kept in secret list of doubtful integrity and will proceed with the matter in accordance with the fresh order to be passed by the disciplinary authority in terms of the observation made above as well as keeping in view the mandate of standing order no.265.
14. With these observations, the OA is partly allowed. No costs.
(Shailendra Pandey) (M.L. Chauhan)
Member (A) Member (J)
/jk/