Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Oa 1343/2008 vs The Commissioner Of Police on 1 April, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A. 1343/2008 with O.A.1383/2008 O.A.1362/2008 New Delhi this the Ist day of April, 2009 Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J) Honble Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member (A) 1. OA 1343/2008 Shri Sunil Kumar, S/o Sh. Samey Singh, R/o H. No. E-523, Gali No.9, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-110092. Applicant. (By Advocate Shri S.P. Chadha) Versus 1. The Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, ITO, Delhi Police. 2. Sh. Ajay Kashyap, Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range, New Delhi (Appellate Authority). 3. Sh. Rupinder Kumar, The Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, North East Distt., Welcome, Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocate Shri R.N. Singh) 2. OA 1383/2008 Shri Kavinder Singh, S/o Shri Udaibir Singh, R/o H.No. 27-A, Johari Pur Extension, Near Satyam Cinema, Loni, Ghaziabad (UP). Applicant. (By Advocate Shri S.P. Chadha) Versus 1. The Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, ITO, Delhi Police. New Delhi. 2. Sh. Ajay Kashyap, Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range, New Delhi (Appellate Authority). 3. Sh. Rupinder Kumar, The Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, North East Distt., Welcome, Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocate Smt. P.K. Gupta) 3. OA 1362/2008 Shri Suraj Bhan Gautam, S/o Shri Ganga Dass, R/o H. No. 631/5, Krishna Gali No. 13, East Maujpur, Delhi-110053. Applicant. (By Advocate Shri S.P. Chadha) Versus 1. The Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, ITO, Delhi Police. 2. Sh. Ajay Kashyap, Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range, New Delhi (Appellate Authority). 3. Sh. Rupinder Kumar, The Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, North East Distt., Welcome, Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocate Shri Ajesh Luthra) O R D E R
Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (j).
The three applications were heard together as substantially the issue involved is one and the same. The Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East District, had passed an order on 29.05.2007, censuring the conduct of four police officers, SI Suraj Bhan, No.D-3540, HC Kavinder Singh, No. 216/NE, Constable Sunil Kumar, No. 1632/NE and one Constable Bachchu Singh, No. 1646/NE. Against the order as above, the appeals have been filed but they have been dismissed, the Joint Commissioner finding that there is no reason to interfere with the orders of the disciplinary authority. Bachchu Singh had not challenged the orders but the three other officers have come up with the Original Applications.
2. Before the issue of the censure order, show cause notice had been issued to the concerned individuals and their written version had been obtained. They had been given opportunity for personal hearing by the disciplinary authority and it is found that the appellate authority also had given them leave to appear before him to make representations. Before the disciplinary authority, only Bachchu Singh had appeared. The rest contended themselves by relying on the written submissions already made. Before the appellate authority, Bachchu Singh had abstained but all the three had appeared and argued their case.
3. Mr. Chadha, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that powers have been arbitrarily exercised by the respondents and penalty has been imposed without legal authority. Although minor penalty proceedings had been initiated, since the adverse order would have legal consequences on them, the counsel submits that the authorities ought to have ensured that adequate materials had been there for implicating them, and their version ought to have been duly taken notice of. But the decisions are rested on assumptions, without any factual basis and it may appear that the action was premeditated.
4. We may look into the essential circumstances for disposing of the applications. The show cause notice of 01.02.2007 alleged about the grave misconduct of negligence, carelessness and dereliction of their part in the discharge of their official duties. It had been stated that illegally Satta was being run at Gali No. 3, Brij Puri, by one Shafiq and his wife. Coming to know about the same, the House Station Officer had been directing the Beat Officer concerned (applicants herein) to stop and control the crime but they had not taken any steps for stopping the activities. It gave rise even to a doubt that they were patronizing the criminals. Verification by superior officers showed that Satta was going on in a large scale and the beat staff had been routinely asked to control the affairs but it was going on without any hindrance.
5. It is alleged that when situation turned worse a raid had been arranged but the raiding party found that the house had been found locked. Somehow or the other the antisocial had got advance warning and, according to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, the officers concerned had leaked the information. It was in that background that the show cause notice had been issued showing that they were negligent and carelessness in the discharge of their duties.
6. In their replies, the Head Constable and the Constable had conceded that Satta was going on for quite sometime in the building, but during their tenure, such activities were not there. They had also highlighted the good work that was being done by them. The Sub Inspector of Police had taken a stand that he was vigilant, and was not involved in any manner with the culprits.
7. Taking notice of the materials that had been gathered, the disciplinary authority found that the contentions raised were not convincing. Although opportunity had been given for the personal hearing, none of them had presented before him. He, therefore, had taken notice of the secret reports as well as newspaper reports and had come to the conclusion that the officers concerned had been negligent in the discharge of their duties, and the crime was continuing. He had decided that circumstances require a censure to be administered on them. The appellate authority had found that although the applicants had presented before him and placed submissions, nothing material had been supplied so as to come to a different conclusion. The order had, therefore, been confirmed.
8. Mr. Chadha, appearing for the applicant, submits that the information collected under the RTI Act, would disclose that there were no raids or inquiries in respect of the premises or the incidents, a circumstance which have been given a prime weight while issuing the punishment orders. According to him, when factually, the inputs in the order are found to be erroneous, the punishment order looses its foundation and punishment, therefore, requires to be set aside.
9. However, we find hardly any reasons to interfere with the order, especially taking note of the version submitted by the applicants in OA 1343/2008 and 1383/2008. It is possible to assume that the Satta was going on in the premises at least on some occasions. None of the applicants have shown as to why preventive steps were not taken and it is also significant that before a raiding party could reach the spot, occupants could lock the door and get away. The circumstance leads to an assumption that there was positive support from the beat party for the Satta to be conducted in large scale. Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules provides that a minor penalty is to be imposed only after issuing a show cause notice and taking notice of the defence. This formality is seen to have been done.
10. In matters of enforcement of discipline, Tribunal is not expected to act as a stumbling block. It is not disputed that not only the illegal game was going on, but an attempt of successful raid somehow got thwarted. The applicants cannot simply claim that they are not to be blamed. We do not find any arbitrariness but only an attempt to enforce discipline and, therefore, it will not be justified on our part to interfere in the orders. The O.As are dismissed. However, we make no order as to costs.
11. Let a copy of this order be placed in OA 1383/2008 and OA 1362/2008.
(N.D. Dayal) (M. Ramachandran) Member (A) Vice Chairman (J) `SRD