Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Roop Chand vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2008
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-142/2008
New Delhi this the 26th day of September, 2008.
Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice-Chairman(J)
Honble Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member(A)
Sh. Roop Chand,
R/o A-44, Police Colony,
Police Station,
Saraswati Vihar,
New Delhi-34. .. Applicant
(through Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate)
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through
the Commissioner of Police,
PHQ MSO Building, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi.
2. The Jt. Commissioner of Police,
North West, New Delhi.
3. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
North West Distt.,
New Delhi. . Respondents
(through Mrs. Sumedha Sharma, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member(A) A departmental enquiry was initiated against the applicant as well as Head Constable Madan Lal by a common order dated 22.06.2005 under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. The charge framed against him by the Enquiry Officer after examination of prosecution witnesses was as under :-
I, Roop Lal, Inspector/anti-Snatching Cell/North West Distt., Delhi, the Enquiry Officer, hereby charge you ASI Roop Chanhd NO.211/NW that while posted at P.S. Saraswati Vihar, you received two intimations from HDFC Bank Officials on 30.4.05 regarding pre/repossession and post-repossession of vehicle No. DL-CC-2397 Maruti Zen. You, ASI roop Chand No. 211/NW neither made any entry in the Roznamcha in this regard nor put up this intimation to SHO and I/C P.P. Rani Bagh and you helped the concerned repossessing authority to show/observe legal formalities with ulterior motives.
I, Roop Lal, Inspector/Anti-Snatching Cell/North West Distt., Delhi, the Enquiry Officer, hereby charge you, H.C. Madan Lal No. 703/NW that while posted at P.P. Rani Bagh, a D.D. entry No. 27 P.P. Rani Bagh dt. 30.4.05 was marked to you. You, H.C. Madan Lal No. 703/NW accepted Rs.500/- from complainant Sh. Rakesh Kumar s/o Sh. Baiz Nath r/o 2988 Sant Nagar, Rani Bagh, Delhi with malafide intention and assured to him to register a case. Later on you returned Rs.500/- to the complainant when you failed to register the case.
The above act on the part of you ASI Roop Chand No.211/NW and H.C. Madan Lal No. 703/NW amounts to gross misconduct, carelessness and dereliction in the discharge of your official duties and unbecoming of a govt. servant, which renders you liable to be dealt with departmentally under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.
2. As per the enquiry report, the applicants refused to produce any defence witnesses but submitted defence statements. The Enquiry Officer held the charge against them as fully proved. The Disciplinary Authority tentatively agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer supplied a copy of the same and representations were received. Having gone through the same and after hearing them in OR, the Disciplinary Authority by its order dated 14.03.2007 awarded the punishment of withholding of one increment for a period for one year without cumulative effect to the applicant as well as Head Constable Madan Lal. Their suspension period was decided as not spent on duty for all intents and purposes and the same would not be regularized in any manner. The Appellate Authority heard them in OR on 24.10.2007 and by its order dated 29.10.2007 declined to interfere with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority and rejected the appeals.
3. As such, the applicant is before us seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) Quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 22-6-2005, 14-3-2007, 29-10-2007 with all consequential effects.
(ii) to Direct the Respondents to restore the increments of the applicants with all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion etc.
(iii) to quash and set-aside order dated 30.6.2007 allow the OA with exemplary cost.
(iv) Pass any other order or direction which this Honble Tribunal thinks fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. There does not appear to be any order dated 30.06.2007 on record but the summary of allegations is dated 30.06.2005 and perhaps this is the document that the applicant has referred to.
4. The respondents have filed counter reply but despite repeated opportunities, no rejoinder has been filed.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the pleadings.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant has brought to our notice an order passed in OA-2242/2007 (Head Constable Madan Lal Vs. GNCT of Delhi and Ors.) on 21.07.2008 by a Division Bench of this Tribunal and it is pointed out that the OA was allowed since H.C. Madan Lal had been punished for a charge which was never framed against him in the entire disciplinary proceedings and against which he did not get any opportunity to defend himself. We, therefore, confine ourselves to the material on record, which relates to the applicant, who is ASI Roop Chand.
7. A perusal of the enquiry report reveals that PW-I was Sh. Satish Kumar and PW-2 was Sh. Sanjay Kumar, an employee of HDFC Bank. Both of them had visited Police Station, Saraswati Vihar on 30.04.2005 for giving prior intimation with regard to Maruti Car Zen No. DL-3CL-2397 before taking balance payment from the party who had taken a loan and they also visited the Police Station later on the same day for giving intimation after they had taken possession of the car due to non-repayment of loan. It has been stated by them that Sh. Sanjay Kumar gave both the pre-possession and post-possession intimations to the duty officer sitting at the reception and this was acknowledged by him after giving signatures and stamp on another copy of these intimations. The pre-possession letter was given at about 4.00 P.M. and the post-possession letter was given after one hour. From the statements of PW-5 Sh. Rakesh Kumar and PW-6 Sh. Rajinder Kumar, it appears that as per complaint filed, the vehicle of PW-5 had been intercepted near Rani Bagh the same day and certain persons in a Maruti Car snatched their valuables and escaped with the car. PW-5 called his brother, PW-6, and a PCR Van came which took Sh. Rakesh Kumar for medical examination as he had received injuries on his chest. They were taken to P.P. Rani Bagh where the written complaint was given.
8. The statement of PW-4 Sh. Trilochan Singh who produced the posting record of the applicant shows that the applicant was posted to P.S. Saraswati Vihar from 08.02.2005 and as such was posted there on 30.04.2005. It is stated that as per record, the applicant was deployed as duty officer. The officers from the bank were unable to say during the cross examination whether the police officer to whom the two intimations about the car were given was present at the enquiry. But it was categorically stated that both the intimations were given to the duty officer who received the same at P.S. Saraswati Vihar. As such, the denial by the applicant that he did not receive the same and, therefore, could not be held responsible for either making entry in Roznamcha in that regard or putting up the same to the S.H.O. and incharge P.P. Rani Bagh was unacceptable. The conduct of the applicant helped the bank officials to show/observe legal formalities with ulterior motive. As per the statement of PW-5 & 6, from their written complaint it would appear that PW-5 received a beating from the representatives of the Bank before they took away the car and as per inquiry report the MLC also showed that there was injury and the doctor had advised pain relief medicines.
9. The applicant has, however, re-emphasized that no intimations were ever handed over to him in person by the bank employees. The charge was held proved merely on presumptions when there was no misconduct. Further, it has not been appreciated that the same day information was duly received by the SHO through the complaint made by Sh. Rakesh Kumar (PW-5) to the SHO for registration of the case and, therefore, when the information had been received by the SHO, the applicant could not be blamed for not informing him. Various FIRs had been lodged by the applicant and many complaints were entertained on that date, and as such he was very busy on duty. The name of the applicant has been kept in the list of doubtful integrity without any reason and he has been punished for merely a procedural mistake, which cannot be construed as a serious misconduct.
10. In their counter reply, the respondents note the evidence recorded during the enquiry and have supported the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer pointing out that it has not been disputed that the bank officials visited Police Station Saraswati Vihar on 30.04.2005 and the intimations were given to the duty officer at the reception and acknowledged by him and still no entry was made in Roznamcha nor were the details put up to the SHO as evident from the record. The complainant had clearly deposed that he was beaten while taking away the vehicle from his possession and the perusal of MLC also reveals that there was abrasion. It is urged that the standard of proof in a departmental enquiry is based upon preponderance of probability. In fact, if the applicant had brought the matter to the notice of the SHO concerned at the relevant time, the incident could have been avoided. He may have registered various FIRs and received complaints but it is significant that these two intimations from the bank officials were not recorded or put up to the SHO.
11. Keeping in view the submissions made before us as well as the material on record, we find force in the stand taken by the respondents. As it is not controverted that the applicant was the duty officer at the reception on 30.04.2005 in Police Station, Saraswati Vihar and the two intimations were handed over to the duty officer by the bank officials, it is evident that it was he who failed to record entry in Roznamcha and put up the same to the SHO. He may have been pre-occupied with other work and the SHO could have come to know of the incident that PW-5 and PW-6 had reported in their complaint, but that would not absolve the applicant from his responsibility which he had neglected. The punishment order takes into account the material on record, which is considered at length and penalty has been awarded after due application of mind. The Appellate order is also a speaking order passed after hearing the applicant in OR on 24.10.2007 and holds the applicant liable in respect of the charge against him, which was established in the enquiry. We are, therefore, not inclined to intervene on behalf of the applicant in this matter. The O.A. is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
(N.D. Dayal) (M. Ramachandran)
Member(A) Vice-Chairman(J)
/vv/