Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Asi Surender Singh (Pis No.28770372) vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 April, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No.2158/2007 New Delhi, this the 15th day of April, 2010 Honble Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice-Chairman (A) Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) ASI Surender Singh (PIS No.28770372) R/o RZ-1173, Gali No.5/5, Main Sagar Pur, New Delhi-46. Applicant. (By Advocate: Shri Anil Singhal) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Commissioner of Police Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate, New Delhi. 2. Jt. Commissioner of Police Traffic, Police Headquarter, I.P.Estate, New Delhi. 3. Shri H.P.S.Virk (DANIPS Cadre Group B) Then D.C.P. (Traffic/NR) Through Commissioner of Police, PHQ, I.P.Estate, New Delhi. 4. D.C.P./Traffic(NR) PHQ, I.P.Estate, New Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocate: Mrs.Sumedha Sharma) ORDER
Mr.L.K.Joshi, Vice-Chairman (A) A.S.I. Surender Singh of Delhi Police has been awarded punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service for a period of two years in a joint departmental inquiry. The same punishment has been inflicted on the co-accused Head Constable (HC) Ashok Kumar and Constable Ashok Kumar. This has been modified by the appellate authority to punishment of forfeiture for one year of service.
2. The learned counsel for the Applicant has pleaded at the outset that there was no allegation against the Applicant and no evidence of wrong doing, yet he has been punished. He has taken us through the Summary of Allegations, which reads thus:
It is alleged against ZO/ASI Surender Singh No.2313/T, HC Ashok 2612/T and Const. Ashok No.1200/T that on 01.09.2005, they while posted in Ashok Vihar Traffic Circle were found indulging in malpractices like accepting illegal extra money from commercial vehicles after prosecuting them at Outer Ring Road near Madhuban Chowk during PRG surveillance. At about 12:10 PM, when the PRG team reached near Madhuban Chowk in the area of Ashok Vihar Circle, it was observed that, one Constable of the traffic staff namely Ashok, in uniform, had stopped one HTV bearing registration No.DL-1M-1471 which was coming from Mukarba Chowk side. Meanwhile, two other Trucks bearing registration numbers PB-07M-5167 and HR-55B-1815 were also stopped by him. The traffic Constable was having some negotiations with the occupants of above vehicles. It was also observed that a ZO while sitting on a chair on the other side of the road was busy in prosecution.
Smelling some suspicion on the part of the traffic staff, the PRG team took position at a distance of about 300 mtrs and waited for the vehicles released by the traffic staff and coming towards the PRG Team. After about 5-7 minutes, the traffic staff allowed the HTV bearing registration No.DL-1M-1471 to go. The vehicle was stopped by the PRG Team and made enquiries from the driver of the vehicle.
The driver namely Raj Dev Ram s/o Shri Bal Govind Ram r/o V&P.O Dadhpi Distt. Orangabad Bihar, and present address c/o Suresh Garg Green Farm Village Neelwal Delhi, on enquiry, revealed that his vehicle was signaled to stop by the uniformed traffic Constable near the subway at Madhuban Chowk and the Constable told him for the prosecution. He told that his vehicle is loaded with the articles belonging to Military. On this, the Constable asked him if he has not taken the fare. The Constable took Rs.150/- from him and directed him to go the ZO sitting on the other side of the road for prosecution. He reached near the ZO and asked for prosecution. The ZO demanded the money of prosecution and after being informed by him that money has been taken by the Constable standing on the other side of the road and after verifying Telephonically from the Constable, and prosecuted him for Rs.100/-.
During The process of enquiry the other two Trucks also reached near the PRG team and the same were stopped. The driver of Truck No.PB.07M-5167, namely Gurmukh Singh s/o Shri Kashmira Singh r/o V&P.O Masidpal Kot Distt. Hoshiyar Pur Punjab. on enquiry revealed that his vehicle was signaled to stop by the uniformed traffic Constable near the subway at Maduban Chowk and the Constable demanded illegal entry money from him. On refusal the Constable told him for prosecution and directed him to go to the ZO sitting on the other side of the Road for prosecution. He reached near the ZO who prosecuted him. An another traffic police personal standing near the ZO demanded Rs.200/- from him and he (the driver) gave Rs.200/- to him. However his prosecution amount was Rs.100/-
The driver of Truck No.HR-55B-1815, namely Satish Kumar s/o Shri Ramphal r/o A-16 Ugger Sen Park Najafgarh N.Delhi, on enquiry, revealed that his vehicle was signaled to stop by the uniformed traffic Constable near the subway at Madhuban Chock and the Constable told him Han Bhai. He under stood the meaning of it and reached near the ZO sitting on the other side of the Road. Another traffic police personnel standing near the ZO demanded Rs.200/- from him to which, he argued for Rs.150/-. In the end, he paid Rs.200/- to this traffic police personnel and was prosecuted only for Rs.100/- by the ZO.
All the above three drivers were brought to the place where their vehicles were stopped and prosecuted by the traffic staff after charging the amount more then the prosecution amount. No traffic police personal was found present there. The circle office was directed that the ZO/ASI Surender Singh should reach the above spot (of prosecution) along with his staff. After some time, ZO/ASI Surender Singh along with HC Ashok No.2612/T reached there. All the three drivers identified ZO ASI Surender Singh as the traffic police officer who had prosecuted them. The driver namely Satish Kumar and Gurmukh Singh identified HC Ashok No.2612/T as the traffic police personnel who had demanded and accepted the amount more then the prosecution amount. HC Ashok No.2612/T was asked to empty out his pockets to produce the extra amount before the undersigned but he refused for it. The photocopy of the challans of above vehicles were taken in police possession through three separate memos.
The third traffic personnel namely Constable Ashok who was also seen by PRG team when he was stopping the above vehicles did not reach the spot (of prosecution), even though the circle office was directed time and again about it. The above three drivers were allowed to leave after waiting for Constable Ashok for a considerable time after recording their statements.
The above act on the part of ZO/ASI Surender Singh No.2313/T, HC Ashok No.2612/T and Const. Ashok No.1200/T, amount to gross misconduct, lack of integrity, indulgence in corruption and dereliction in the discharge of their official duties which renders them liable for departmental action under the provisions of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980. The charge, which was framed after examining seven witnesses for the prosecution is reproduced below:
I, M.M. Kesar, Traffic Inspector (Enquiry Officer) hereby charge you ZO/ASI Surender Singh No.2313/T, HC Ashok 2612/T and Const. Ashok No.1200/T that on 01.09.2005, while you all posted in Ashok Vihar Traffic Circle were found indulging in malpractices by demanding and accepting illegal extra money from commercial vehicles on outer ring road near Madhuban Chowk during PRG surveillance. At about 12:10 PM, you Const. Ashok No.1200/T had stopped one HTV bearing registration No.DL-1M-1471 followed by two trucks bearing registration numbers PB-07M-5167 and HR-55B-1815 at Madhuban Chowk and found negotiating with its occupants. You Constable Ashok No.1200/T took Rs.150/- from Shri Raj Dev Ram, driver of truck No.DL-1M-1471 and directed him to go to the Z.O. for prosecution. You, ASI Surender Singh No.2313/T after confirmation from Constable Ashok of having received the money, prosecuted the driver for Rs.100/-. You HC Ashok No.2612/T demanded and accepted Rs.200/- each from Gurmukh Singh and Satish Kumar, drivers of truck Nos. PB 0 7M 5167 and HR 55 B 1815 respectively, while you ASI Surender Singh No.2313/T prosecuted both the trucks only for Rs.100/- each.
I, M.M. Kesar, Traffic Inspector (Enquiry Officer) further charge you ASI Surender Singh No.2313/T, HC Ashok No.2612/T and Constable Ashok No.1200/T that you all disappeared from the spot when PRG team reached their. You ASI Surender Singh No.2313/T and you HC Ashok No.2612/T reached the spot back only on the direction given to the circle office by the PRG staff. The divers namely Satish Kumar and Gurmukh Singh identified you ZO/ASI Surender Singh as the traffic police officer who had prosecuted them and also identified you HC Ashok No.2612/T as the traffic police personnel who had demanded and accepted the amount more than the prosecution amount. You, Const. Ashok No.1200/T did not reach the spot back even after being called through circle office.
The above act on the part of you ASI Surender Singh No.2313/T, HC Ashok No.2612/T and Constable Ashok No.1200/T amounts to gross misconduct, indulgence in malpractices, lack of integrity and dereliction in the discharge of official duties which renders them liable for punishment under the provisions of Delhi police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules -1980. The drivers of the vehicles denied that bribe was demanded from them and accepted by the co-delinquents. Only point made in the discussion of evidence by the inquiry officer, regarding the Applicant herein is that he was recognized by the drivers that he was the official who had prosecuted them. The learned counsel contends that this is not an offence. The Applicant was merely doing his duty. The order of the disciplinary authority is a non-speaking order. He has dealt with the issue summarily thus:
Assessing all the facts and circumstances of the case, it has been established that the defaulter ASI, defaulter HC and defaulter Constable are guilty of the chare of indulging in malpractices like accepting illegal extra money from commercial vehicles after prosecuting them. The defaulter ASI instead of restraining his subordinates was himself actively involved in the malpractices. The act of police officer in malpractices like accepting illegal extra money from commercial vehicles is a grave misconduct which tarnishes the image of the whole department as well as its officials in the eyes of general public. This is a case where the protectors of law had indulged in the act of corruption and misused the powers conferred upon them. Shri Anil Singhal, learned counsel, contends that there is no discussion of the evidence on record. There is no charge against the Applicant that he did not dissuade his colleagues but was also actively involved in the malpractice. This was neither a charge nor is there is any evidence to this effect, contends the learned counsel.
2. The learned counsel for the Respondents, Ms. Sumedha Sharma, would seek to justify the action taken against ASI Surender Singh, on the strength of the statement of PW-3, Shri R.P.Singh, Traffic Inspector, that one of the drivers, who was prosecuted, stated during the inquiry by the PRG team that the Zonal Officer, the Applicant, verified on phone from the police official across the road whether he had collected money from the driver. This is the evidence, according to the learned counsel.
3. We are not persuaded by the learned counsel for the Respondents to accept the argument that the culpability of the Applicant is proved merely because he telephonically inquired from the Police Official on the other side of the road whether the latter had collected the money from the driver. It could be only to confirm whether he had taken Rs.100/- from the driver. He has prosecuted the driver for Rs.100/- only. This argument carries no conviction.
4. We are constrained to observe that there was no charge against the Applicant unless challaning the errant truck drivers is an offence. The disciplinary authority has not applied his mind to the facts of the case. The appellate authority has also given no consideration to the fact that there was no charge against the Applicant. He has tarred all the delinquents with the same brush, which again is symptomatic of non-application of mind. The conclusion of the appellate authority is reproduced below:
In my view the EO after evaluating and assessing the evidence and taking into consideration the written defence statement as well as the representation submitted by the appellants had submitted his findings which is just and fair. There is sufficient evidence on record on the basis of which the EO has prepared the finding. The possibility of winning over the PWs by the appellants cannot be ruled out. Hence, the plea of the appellants did not generate any confidence and the same cannot be accepted. The contention of the appellants that they did not disappear from the spot and they just moved away from there in normal course is not admitted. No traffic staff was found present at the spot. They reached at the spot when they were directed by the circle. The drivers Satish Kumar and Gurmukh Singh identified the HC who had demanded and accepted the amount more than the prosecution amount. But during the DE proceedings they turned hositte due to fear of reprisal at the hands of traffic staff. However, the plea of the appellants that if the EO has proved the charge partly it should clearly mention what portion of charge is proved and what portion remained unproved has force in it.
In view of the above facts and circumstances and the contentions of the appellants I consider the appeal of the appellants and hereby reduce the punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service temporary to that of punishment of forfeiture of one year approved service temporarily. How could the appellate authority find force in the plea of the Applicant that it was not clear as to which part of the charge was proved and which was not and yet still maintain that there was wrongdoing?
5. On above considerations, the impugned order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority and the order of the appellate authority are not maintainable and are quashed and set aside. The Applicant would be eligible for all consequential benefits considering as if he was never awarded the punishment. Orders to reimburse the amount deducted from the salary of the Applicant consequent to the order of punishment would be issued and reimbursement be made within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
(Dr.Dharam Paul Sharma) (L.K.Joshi)
Member (J) Vice-Chairman (A)
/dkm/