Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Gurjinder Pal Singh vs M/O Home Affairs on 15 October, 2024
1
Item No. 15/ C-1 O.A. No. 2956/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 2956/2024
This the 15thday of October, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Gujinder Pal Singh
S/o Paramjeet Singh Plaha,
Aged about 51 years,
Occupation-Director State Police Academy,
Chandkhuri, Raipur (C.G.) 492101
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Ankur Chibber, Mr Yasharth Shukla,
Mr. Nikunj Arora)
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh through Additional Chief Secretary
Department of Home (Police) Mahanadi Bhawan Atal
Nagar, Raipur (CG), Pin: 492001
2. Union of India
Through Secretary Department of Home, North Block,
Sansad Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
3. Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Naya
Raipur, Chattisgarh, PIN-493002
4. Mr. D.M. Awasthi, Director General of Police
Headquarter, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, PIN-492002
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr R K Jain, Mr. Avdesh Singh, Mr. Prashant
Singh, Mr. Chandan Kumar Jha, Mr. S N Verma )
2
Item No. 15/ C-1 O.A. No. 2956/2024
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
1. At the outset, Mr. S N Verma, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, states that the Union of India is only a proforma party and since the subject impugned order was passed by Respondent Nos. 1 & 3, Respondent No. 2 has no role to play in the matter.
2. Since pleading in the matter are complete, by the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the OA is taken up for final hearing.
3. By filing the instant OA, the applicant has challenged the orders dated 18.09.2020 (Annexure A-7) and 28.10.2020 (Annexure A-8), which culminated in the order dated 06.11.2020 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Department of Home (Police), Raipur-Respondent No. 1 & the Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh-Respondent No. 3. By the order dated 06.11.2020, a five-member Inquiry Committee, headed by Shri Sanjay Pillai, DGP, (Jail), Chhattisgarh, was constituted to reopen and re-inquire into the Self Contained Note (SCN) issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding the unfortunate incident of suicide committed by Shri Rahul Sharma on 12.03.2012.
4. Brief facts, giving rise to the present Application, are as follows:
4.1 In the year 1994, the applicant cleared the Civil Services Examination (CSE) and joined the Indian Police Service 3 Item No. 15/ C-1 O.A. No. 2956/2024 (IPS). On 10.01.2012, the applicant was promoted to the post of Inspector General and posted at Bilaspur Range. On the very same day, Late Sh. Rahul Sharma also joined Bilaspur as Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur District. On 12.03.2012, Sh. Rahul Sharma committed suicide in Police Officers Mess, Bilaspur, leaving behind a suicide note, which reads as follows:
"I am just sick & tired of this life. Such an interfering boss, such an arrogant and haughty Judge of the High Court. They both have ruined my peace of mind, troubling my family. I choose death over disgrace and humiliation. I am sorry Gayatri for all this. Pl. take care of the kids & grow them up into peaceful persons. Luv. To Chati & Swami. Amma, Appa, Dad, Mom will be extremely upset & angry at this. I know you all will never forgive me. But I suppose it is better to die than to show up a sad face always.... Rahul.
Rohit pl. take care of parents.
I'm sorry dear"
4.2. Pursuant to the suicide note referred above, an FIR was registered on 04.05.2012 and subsequently, an investigation was taken over by the CBI. After thorough investigation, the CBI filed its closure report on 11.09.2013 in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), on the premise that no case of abetment of suicide was made out against the applicant. However, a letter dated 20.09.2013 was addressed by the CBI to the Chief Secretary, Government of Chhatisgarh enclosing therewith an SCN, which contained 4 Item No. 15/ C-1 O.A. No. 2956/2024 its findings for taking appropriate action against the applicant as deemed fit.
4.3. On 19.01.2016, the then DGP after due examination of the allegations in the SCN and the reply thereto submitted by the applicant, opined that there is no reason to disbelieve the reply and documents submitted by the applicant and hence requested the competent authority to take appropriate decision, which is contained in the letter dated 01.04.2016 by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Home Department addressed to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home affairs. For ready reference, the letter dated 01.04.2016 is reproduced below:
"Under the above subject, ips-please refer to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs letter no. 26011/73/2014-IPS-II dated 24.07.2015 whereby information was sought regarding the death of the then Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur Mr. Rahul Sharma IPS after the completion of the investigation of the registered case, against Mr. G.P. Singh IPS (CH:1994) to take appropriate action on the proposal sent by the CBI, the action of the State Government, the closure report presented by CBI before the Hon'ble Court and information about the vigilance status of Mr. Singh has been sought.
2. In this context, I have received instructions to inform you that:-
(i) The information regarding Vigilance Clearance of Mr. Singh has been sent to you in the prescribed form through the letter no.F 1-02/2015/Do-
Grah/TPS, dated 09.02.2015, which is currently in place. (A photocopy of the letter is attached for easy reference) 5 Item No. 15/ C-1 O.A. No. 2956/2024
(ii) The closure report submitted by the CBI to the Hon'ble Court is still under consideration.
(iii) In relation to the Self Contained note (SCN ) presented by the CBI, there is a declaration that in the absence of evidence, the state government has decided to close the file and no action is proposed against Shri G.P. Singh."
4.4. The learned Special Court, CBI, thereafter, vide judgment/order dated 21.07.2017, accepted the closure report filed by the CBI in the suicide case of Shri Rahul Sharma, and thus exonerated the applicant.
It is pertinent to note here that the contents of the SCN were part of the closure report and the Special Court also held that the acts of the applicant were in discharge of his official duties. After the administrative and judicial closure of the suicide case, a five-member Inquiry Committee was constituted qua the suicide of Shri Rahul Sharma on 06.11.2020, which is impugned in the present Application.
5. Mr. Ankur Chibber, learned counsel for the applicant, relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 2440/2023 titled Gurjinder Pal Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 30.04.2024, which was upheld in the judgment dated 23.08.2024 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 10703/2024, and submits that a file relating to SCN received from the CBI having been closed, the first and third respondents could not 6 Item No. 15/ C-1 O.A. No. 2956/2024 have constituted five-member Inquiry Committee, i.e. after a lapse of more than five years.
6. Mr. Avdesh Singh, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3, submits that though the closure report was filed by the CBI and subsequently accepted by the Special Court, civil proceedings are different from the criminal proceedings and Respondent No. 1 was justified in reopening the case against the applicant qua the suicide of Shri Rahul Sharma.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the having considered the rival submissions of respective parties, we find merit in the present Application.
8. The initiation of subject proceedings was one of the grounds for compulsorily retiring the applicant. This ground was considered by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 2440/2023. The relevant findings are contained in paras 19 to 23, which are reproduced for ready reference:
"19. On 12.03.2012, Mr. Rahul Sharma, the then Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur committed suicide, leaving a suicide note, wherein he mentioned that reason for committing suicide is due to the harassment meted out to him by an interfering boss' and an 'arrogant and haughty Judge of the High Court'. There is no dispute that CBI, after detailed investigation, did not find the case of abetment of suicide and accordingly, a closure report was filed before the learned trial court. The said closure report was accepted by a well-reasoned order by the trial court vide judgment/order dated 21.07.2017. Relevant portion of the said judgment/order reads thus:-
"It also appears to be appropriate to clarify here that powers conferred to superior police officers have been 7 Item No. 15/ C-1 O.A. No. 2956/2024 mentioned section 36 of Criminal Procedure Code that Police officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station. Thereby meaning that, aforementioned provision provides absolute right of supervision to the posted superior police officer on the subordinate police officers.
Objectioners have also raised this objection that I.G. Shri GP Singh used to interfere in the functioning of Shri Rahul Sharma and he used to contact and dialect with his subordinates directly, as a result of which Rahul Sharma used to feel highly state of sorrow and harassed. In this connection, provision contained in section 36 of Criminal Procedure Code has already been mentioned hereinabove, which is a subject matter jurisdiction of a superior police officer. It appears very pertinent to mention here that during his tenure of two months posting in Bilaspur, Shri Rahul Sharma remained in leave for 25 days. No officer was posted on the post of Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur for a long period, under such situation, it appears to be requirement of that time a senior police officer connected with law and orders, communicate with his subordinates directly and control them and according to the powers conferred under section 36 of Criminal Procedure Code, it was part of his official responsibilities to maintain law and orders in the area under his jurisdiction instead of personal responsibility. Therefore, aforementioned administrative conduct of Shri G.P. Singh cannot be held basis of committing suicide.
The facts in connection with subject of working system of Shri G.P. Singh as mentioned in the Closure Report and objectioners, all these entire facts and actions are appears to have been done in the capacity of supervising officer and under the legal provisions.
Resultantly, as stated hereinabove, on the basis of the facts and available evidence of this case, no solid ground is apparent to disbelieve on the Closure Report momitted by the CBI or remanding back for reinvestigation by validating this closure report. Therefor erased by the objectiated and Closure Report ted by the CBI be invalidated and CBI be directed to gate the case again. Aforementioned objection is Closure Report and investigation conducted in this case being satisfactory, this Closure Report submitted on behalf of the CBI is accepted.8
Item No. 15/ C-1 O.A. No. 2956/2024 Case file be closed as per rule and Case Diary and other documents be returned back to the CBI."
20. A reading of the above observations by the trial court makes it abundantly clear that all the acts of the applicant while dispensing his duties as IG, Bilaspur were in the discharge of his official duties as supervisory officer and cannot be deemed to be interference in the work of Superintendent of Police. Accordingly, the trial court justified the said observations by citing the legal provisions from Cr.PC, Police Regulations and Civil Service Classification Rules.
21. Further, the CBI addressed a letter to the Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh on 20.09.2013, enclosing therewith an SCN. This SCN sent by the CBI to the Chief Secretary was duly considered and after following due process, based on the DGP's recommendations, the entire chapter was put to rest on 01.04.2016. For ready reference, the letter dated 01.04.2016 is reproduced herein below:-
"Under the above subject, ips-please refer to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs letter no. 26011/73/2014-IPS-II dated 24.07.2015 whereby information was sought regarding the death of the then Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur Mr. Rahul Sharma IPS after the completion of the investigation of the registered case against Mr. G.P. Singh IPS (CH:1994) to take appropriate action on the proposal sent by the CBI, the action of the State Government, the closure report presented by CBI before the Hon'ble Court and information about the vigilance status of Mr. Singh has been sought.
2/ In this context, I have received instructions to inform you that:-
(i) The information regarding Vigilance Clearance of Mr. Singh has been sent to you in the prescribed form through the letter no.F 1-02/2015/Do-Grah/IPS, dated 09.02.2015, which is currently in place. (A photocopy of the letter is attached for easy reference).
(ii) The closure report submitted by the CBI to the Hon'ble Court is still under consideration.
(iii) In relation to the Self Contained note (SCN) presented by the CBI, there is a declaration that in the absence of evidence, the state government has decided to close the file and no action is proposed against Shri G.P. Singh."
(emphasis supplied) 9 Item No. 15/ C-1 O.A. No. 2956/2024 Clause (iii) of the aforesaid letter makes it unequivocally clear that in the absence of evidence, the State Government has taken a conscious decision to close the file and no action is proposed against the applicant.
22. In our considered opinion, once the file relating to SCN dated 20.09.2013 received from CBI having been closed and decided finally, as reflected in the aforesaid letter dated 01.04.2016, respondent No.2 could not have constituted a five-member Inquiry Committee, that too, after a lapse of more than four years, qua the suicide of Mr. Rahul Sharma. The applicant has, however, approached the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal by instituting O.A. No.08/2021, challenging the constitution of five- member Inquiry Committee. This Tribunal while granting stay observed as under:-
"As per Annexure A-09, the learned Special Judge, CBI has accepted the closure report after hearing the objection of the complainant. Meaning thereby, the Special Court (CBI) has closed the matter. However, as per the impugned order dated 06.11.2020 (Annexure A-1), a sub- committee has been constituted on the basis of Self Contained Note, which amounts to reopening of the case for further investigation.
Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CSHA University and another vs. B.D. Goyal to the fact that there cannot be a second enquiry on the same facts, which amounts to de novo enquiry.
In such circumstances, we are of the view that this is a fit case for interim direction.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed not to proceed further in pursuance to Annexure A-1 dated 06.11.2020 till the next date of hearing."
It is pertinent to mention here that the stay granted by the Tribunal is in operation till date.
23. In light of the above, we are of the opinion that a five- member Inquiry Committee could not have been constituted to inquire against the applicant's role in the suicide of Mr. Rahul Sharma and hence, this cannot be a ground to retire him compulsorily."
9. The aforesaid order of this Tribunal in OA No. 2440/2023 was challenged by the Respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of 10 Item No. 15/ C-1 O.A. No. 2956/2024 Delhi in WP (C) No. 10703/2024. This Writ Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court by a speaking order dated 23.08.2024. So far as the Constitution of fresh Committee by the CBI is concerned, the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court made the following observations:
31. There is no doubt that by issuing communication dated 06.11.2020, respondent No.2 has infact reopened the inquiry, fate of which stood already closed under the order of the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CSHA University and another Vs. B.D. Goyal (2010) 15 SCC 776 has already held that there cannot be second inquiry on the same facts. It has been observed and held as under:-
"4. The District Judge came to the conclusion that initiation of a second enquiry by a second enquiring officer was invalid and inoperative since the authority who had taken that decision never disagreed with the conclusion arrived at by the enquiring officer, and had not indicated any reasons in writing, and as such not only the initiation of a second enquiry was bad in law but also any subsequent action pursuant to the said second enquiry must be held to be bad in law. With this conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal having been allowed, the University approached the High Court in second appeal.
xxxx
7. It is no doubt true that the punishing authority or any higher authority could have disagreed with the finding of the enquiring officer, but in such a case the authority concerned is duty-bound to record reasons in writing and not on ipse dixit can alter the finding of an enquiring officer. The order of the Vice-Chancellor, which was produced before us does not satisfy the requirements of law in the matter of differing with the findings of an enquiring officer. In that view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned judgment so as to be interfered with by this Court. This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed."
32. In light of aforesaid decision in CSHA University (Supra), this Court finds that while reopening the case of respondent No.1, that 11 Item No. 15/ C-1 O.A. No. 2956/2024 too without any reasoning or any fresh ground, especially when Closure Report mentioned that no case was made out against him, which was accepted by the Court, is nothing but an apparent attempt to harass respondent No.1.
10. We must follow the findings of the Division Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 2440/2023 and confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 10703/2024.
11. The OA accordingly succeeds and the impugned order dated 06.11.2020 is quashed and set aside.
12. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Justice Ranjit More) Member (A) Chairman /ks/