Delhi District Court
Department vs Mr. Rajesh Kumar on 2 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. PITAMBER DUTT; ENQUIRY OFFICER ( CENTRAL)17
DELHI
Department Enquiry No. 06/2010
Department
Versus
Mr. Rajesh Kumar
Ahlmad in the court of
Ms Vrinda Kumari,
Ld. Civil Judge,
Central03, Delhi
Enquiry Report
1 That the undersigned was appointed as an Enquiry Officer by
Ld. District & Session Judge, Delhi to inquire the charges leveled against
delinquent Rajesh Kumar.
2 Annexure 1 containing the charges framed against Rajesh
Kumar, Ahlmad in the court of Ms, Vrinda Kumari, Civil Judge, Central03,
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. The delinquent denied the articles of charge as
well as statement of imputation of misconduct vide his reply dated
27.03.2010.
D.E 06/2010 1/8
The delinquent also denied the charges framed against him during the inquiry proceedings on 30.08.2010, consequently after completion of necessary formalities, the matter was posted for Department Evidence.
3 In order to prove the charges, department examined Ms Vrinda Kumari, Additional Rent Controller, North East, Karkardooma Court Complex, Delhi as SW1 and Ms Archna Gupta, LDC, Vigilence Branch, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi as SW2, thereafter the Presenting Officer on behalf of the department closed the department evidence on 23.09.2010. 4 Delinquent, Rajesh Kumar examined, Sh. Rajesh Kumar Saini, LDC, Judicial Branch, Central as DW1 and delinquent Rajesh Kumar examined himself as DW2, thereafter delinquent Rajesh Kumar closed his evidence on 25.02.2011.
5 SW1, Ms Varinda Kumar, Ld. ARC deposed that she was posted as Civil Judge, III, Central from 20.07.2009 to 12.09.2010. During her aforesaid posting, it was reported to her by the Ahlmad of the court that case file bearing suit No. 113/08 titled Vipin Mehra Vs. Pro Interactive Service Indian Pvt. Ltd. was not traceable. Despite opportunities, the D.E 06/2010 2/8 delinquent could not trace the same. She gave intimation to the Ld. District Judge on 28.08.2009 and 29.08.2009 same are Ex. SW1/1 & Ex. SW1/2.
During crossexamination SW1 deposed that she cannot say without verifying the record, if the case file of suit No. 530/98, titled S. Jaswant Singh Vs Pritam Kaur was trace out or not. She admitted that delinquent had given reply dated 11.12.2009 to her which is Ex. SW1/B. On 20.07.2009 a Parcha Yadash regarding the missing file was maintained. She further deposed that she cannot say if the said file got misplaced during the shifting of the record from ground floor to first floor prior to her posting in the said court. She further deposed that as far as she remember said file was subsequently reconstructed under the order of Ld. District Judge. 6 The department also examined Ms Archna Gupta, LDC as SW2 who deposed that memo dated 7.9.09, 18.9.09 and 13.10.09 have been issued from her department under the signatures of Sh. Jeet Kumar Vaid, the then Superintendent Branch. Same are exhibited as SW2/1 to Ex. SW2/3.
7 Delinquent examined one Rajesh Kumar Saini as DW1. During crossexamined DW1 deposed that there is no circular to the effect that if during shifting any case file is misplaced then Ahlmad of the court D.E 06/2010 3/8 shall not be responsible for the same. He admitted that care taking branch only assist the Ahlmad in shifting the record and entire records remained in the custody of the Ahlmad.
8 Delinquent examined himself as DW2. During examination in chief he deposed that he was posted in the court of Ms Vrinda Kumar, Ld. Civil Judge in the year 2003 as Ahlmad. Prior to Ms Vrinda Kumari, ld. Civil Judge, the court was presided by Sh. Prashant Sharma, ld. Civil Judge. The case titled Vipin Mehra Vs. ProInteractive Services India Pvt. Ltd. being suit no. 113/08 was pending initially in the court of Sh. Deepak Dabas, ld. Civil Judge and thereafter the said court was presided over by Sh. Manish Khurana, Ld. Civil Judge. He further deposed that Sh. Deepak Dabas, ld. Civil Judge was holding the court in room no. 15 and Ahlmad of the said court was used to sin in room no. 3. When Mr. Manish Khurana, ld. Civil Judge taken over the charge of the said court the room of the said court was shifted to room no. 346. Ahlmad room was also shifted from room no. 3 to room no. 346. He shifted the entire record of room no. 3 to room no. 346. Care Taking Branch provided assistance for shifting the record. Files were handed over in cloth bags to the person deputed by care taking branch for shifting to room no. 346. After completion of the shifting he put all the files in order in different almiras. The above file was listed D.E 06/2010 4/8 for March/April 2009 and could not be traced. He tried to find the said file to the best of his ability and is still trying but cannot trace out the said file. He further deposed that said file has been reconstructed during the tenure of Ms. Vrinda Kumar. He further stated that said file may have lost during the shifting of the court room.
During crossexamination DW2 stated that he gave reply dated 27.03.2010 Ex. DW2/C1 which bears his signatures at point A. He also gave reply dated 15.09.2009 Ex. DW2/C2 which bears his signatures at point A. Another reply dated 1.10.2009 Ex. DW2/C3 which bears his signatures at point A. He admitted that the said file was in his custody. He also admitted that it was his duty to shift the said file carefully. He further deposed that two files mentioned in reply Ex. DW2/C2 were not misplaced during shifting. He denied that the file in question has not been misplaced during shifting but due to his carelessness.
9 I have heard arguments advanced by presenting officer on behalf of the department as well as defence assistant on behalf of the delinquent. I have also perused the evidence and documents placed on record.
D.E 06/2010 5/8 10 The charge against delinquent is that while he was working in the court of Ms Vrinda Kumari, Civil Judge ( Central) during the year 2009, he lost the case file of Suit bearing no. 113/08 titled Vipin Mehra Vs. Pro Interactive Service India ( P) Ltd.
11 In order to prove the charges against the delinquent, department has examined Ms Vrinda Kumar, the then Ld. ARC as SW1 who proved her intimation given to ld. District Judge as Ex. SW1/1 & Ex. SW1/2. During crossexamination SW1 stated that she cannot say if the said file misplaced during the shifting of the record from ground floor to first floor. She admitted that the said file was subsequently reconstructed under the order of Ld. District Judge.
12 The delinquent in his reply Ex. DW1/C1 denied the charges leveled upon him. He denied that he has worked carelessely with lack of devotion to his duty. He also denied that being the Ahlmad, it was his preliminary duty to keep judicial file in safe and sound condition which he has failed to do so. Delinquent examined one Rajesh Kumar as SW1. During crossexamination SW1 stated that there is no circular to the effect that if during shifting any case file is misplaced then Ahlmad of the said court shall not be responsible for the same. He admitted that care taking D.E 06/2010 6/8 branch only assist the Ahlmad in shifting the record and entire record remains in the custody of the Ahlmad. Delinquent also examined himself as DW2. During crossexamination delinquent admitted that said file was in his custody. He further admitted that it was his duty to shift the said file carefully.
13 An examination of the material placed on record shows that the delinquent who was the Ahlmad of the court and all the files were in his custody. It was his duty to shift the record from one room to another carefully. However he failed to do so and the case file bearing no. 113/08 titled Vipin Mehra Vs ProInteractive Services India ( P) Ltd. was misplaced. The delinquent has pleaded that same has been misplaced during shifting as he engaged certain person from the care taking branch. He further pleaded that said file was subsequently reconstructed. However, fact remains that all the case files of the court were under his custody and he was required to shift the entire record carefully from one Court to another. The official of care taking branch were made available only for providing aid and assistance to the Ahlmad and it was the responsibility of the delinquent to shift the case files from one court to another court. However, he failed to do so and lost the case file of suit bearing no. 113/08 titled Vipin Mehra Vs ProInteractive Services India ( P) Ltd. D.E 06/2010 7/8 14 In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that department has proved the charges against the delinquent as mentioned in AnnexureI. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that department has successfully prove the charges as mention in Annexure A against the delinquent Rajesh Kumar, it is proved that Sh. Rajesh Kumar while working as Ahmad in the court of Ms Vrinda Kumari, Civil Judge, ( Central03) Tis Hazari Court, Delhi during the year 2009 lost the case file of suit bearing no. 113/08, titled Vipin Mehra Vs ProInteractive Services India ( P) Ltd. Being the Ahlmad it was the duty of Sh. Rajesh Kumar to keep the judicial file in safe and sound custody which he failed to do so.
Report is accordingly submitted.
Dated: 02.05.2011 ( PITAMBER DUTT)
One spare copy attached ENQUIRY OFFICER
CENTRAL17, DELHI
D.E 06/2010 8/8
D.E 06/2010 9/8