Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Asi Noor Mohd vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 9 December, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No.2689 of 2009 New Delhi this the 9th day of December, 2010 Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) ASI Noor Mohd. S/o Late Sukara Khan, R/o A-665, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi-110096. .... Applicant ( By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan ) VERSUS 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Joint Commissioner of Police Southern Range, Through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, Through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. .. Respondents ( By Advocate Shri Padma Kumar S. for Ms. Jyoti Singh ) O R D E R Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) :
The applicant is an Assistant Sub Inspector in Delhi Police. He was proceeded against in a departmental inquiry on the following summary of allegations:-
It is alleged against ASI (Exe) Noor Mohd No.888/D (PIS No.28740631) that while posted at P.S. Okhala Industrial Area, he was entrusted with the investigation of case FIR No.94/02 dated 21.02.2002 U/S 279/337 IPC, P.S. O.I.A. After completion of the investigation he got prepared charge sheet after C.D. No.8 dated 5/10/2002, but he did not get signed the charge sheet and the final case diary from the then SHO/OIA and kept the case file with him without any cogent reason. It is a case of Simple accident for which time limit to complete investigation is six months and the charge sheet was required to be filed before 21.08.2002 but he failed to file the same within the stipulated period and also did not return the case file upto 15.01.2004 due to which the case became time barred.
The above act on the part of ASI (Exe.) Noor Mohd. No.888/D amounts to gross misconduct negligence, carelessness and dereliction in the discharge of his official duties, which renders him liable for departmental action under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980. After examination of seven prosecution witnesses, the inquiry officer framed the charge against the applicant on the lines of the summary of allegations, as referred to above. The applicant produced two defence witnesses in his defence. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the inquiry officer concluded that the charge stood proved. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer and served a copy of the same upon the applicant to enable him to make his representation thereagainst. The applicant made his representation wherein his main plea was that he was not keeping good health, as he was suffering from heart trouble. The explanation was not found satisfactory by the disciplinary authority, which proceeded to impose the penalty of withholding of next increment for the period of one year without cumulative effect. The applicant filed an appeal against this order, which was also rejected by the appellate authority. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has filed this Application, challenging the finding of the inquiry officer; the order of penalty and the order of the appellate authority rejecting his appeal.
2. In the Application, the applicant is challenging the impugned orders and findings, inter alia on the ground that the case has not become time barred though the entire departmental inquiry has been built up on this premise. In this regard, the applicant referred to the copies of the Court proceedings, which are at Annexure A/7, wherefrom it can be seen that the case was ultimately compromised between the parties and has not been turned down on the ground of it being time barred. It has further been submitted that the present case is a case of no misconduct in view of evidence on record that the applicant was ill and was further hospitalized. The applicant has indeed prepared the chargesheet but the same was not signed by the SHO. The testimony of SHO is, therefore, not to be relied upon. The inquiry officer, disciplinary and appellate authorities have not given due consideration to the defence put forth by the applicant. The applicant was unable to take appropriate action on account of his ill health and the SHO ought to have taken necessary action. The applicant had indeed disposed of 146 cases, which were entrusted to him during his posting at P.S. Okhla and there was no negligence on his part. The punishment imposed upon the applicant is highly disproportionate. The delay in filing the charge sheet was not intentional but due to the circumstances. The lapse on the part of the applicant does not fall within the ambit of term misconduct, as the negligence in performance of duty and inefficiency in discharge of duty are not misconduct.
3. The respondents denied these grounds in the reply. It has been submitted by the respondents that the applicant was found negligent for keeping the case file pending with him without any cogent reason. Though the applicant was suffering from the heart ailment during the period 2003, he should have either filed the case before the Trial Court before that period in 2002 and if for any reason he could not do that, he should have returned the case file to the concerned authority but he has not taken any such steps in the present case. The applicant could not evade the responsibility by passing the buck on the shoulder of others. The applicant prepared the chargesheet after the case has become time barred for which reason the SHO has not signed it. There is nothing wrong in examining the SHO, as a witness, who has deposed in the inquiry that the Honble Metropolitan Magistrate remitted the case back for ascertaining as to what action has been taken against the delinquent applicant before he could pass any further order. The authorities concerned viz. inquiry officer, disciplinary authority and appellate authority have given due consideration to the submissions made by the applicant before them. The applicant did not return the case file in spite of having been asked to do so by his seniors.
4. The applicant filed his rejoinder wherein the averments made in the OA have been reiterated.
5. At the hearing, learned counsel for the applicant strongly contended that the case had not become time barred, as alleged by the respondents, though there might have been some delay in the matter. This can be seen from the proceedings of the court, copy of which is at Annexure A/7. Had the case become time barred, the parties could not have compromised, as is evident by Court proceedings at Annexure A/7. The learned counsel has taken us through the evidence in the inquiry as well as other records of the case to show that it was well within the knowledge of the SHO and the disciplinary authority that the applicant was medically unfit. Since the applicant was medically unfit, there cannot be any negligence on his part. In any case, there has been no loss to the department in view of the fact that criminal case ended in compromise and was not thrown out at the very threshold on the ground of it being time barred.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the applicants claim by submitting that it is a case of strict liability and the question of intention is immaterial. The applicant is duty bound to file chargesheet within the prescribed period under the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has failed to do so. He is, thus, found guilty of dereliction in discharge of his duty. If for certain reasons, he was unable to perform his duty, he could have brought this fact to the notice of his seniors and returned the case file so that the case could have been entrusted to somebody else for taking action within time. There is no justification for the applicant to keep the case file pending with him without taking any action for which no cogent reason has been given. The pleas taken by the applicant are not tenable in view of the nature of the case involving the strict liability of the respondents. All the concerned authorities have given due consideration in appreciation for the applicants submissions and has indeed taken a lenient view by awarding the punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect. The learned counsel for the respondents strongly urged that the case is devoid of substance and is liable to be dismissed as such.
7. We have given careful consideration to the respective submissions made by both the parties. We have also carefully perused the records of the case. The facts of the case are not in dispute. By applicants own admission, there has been some delay in taking necessary action in case FIR No.94/02. To that extent, there is a clear case of dereliction of duty. The applicant sought to justify the lapses attributable to him on account of his ill health and heavy load of work. This did not find favour with the respondents authority for the reason that the action required to be taken by the applicant pertained to the period before he fell ill and the plea of heavy load of work was also found devoid of substance in view of the fact that the applicant did not even return the case file when asked to do so, so that the case could have been entrusted to somebody else for taking necessary action instead he kept the file pending with him. Court matters are time bound matters. One is required to adhere to the procedural requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedures. It has right been pointed in such cases, the question of intention or ultimate loss may not be very relevant while fixing responsibility for non-compliance of timely filing of a chargesheet in any case.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find infirmity in the impugned action of the respondents. The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited one. The courts neither sit in an appeal over the decisions of the disciplinary authorities nor it is open to reappraise the evidence in such cases. There is neither any allegation of mala fide nor any infraction of any statutory rules. This is also not a case of no evidence. In these premises, we do not find any merit in the present Application. The same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) (Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda)
Member (J) Member (A)
/ravi/