Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Satya Prakash vs Comm. Of Police on 16 August, 2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No.2486 of 2015
Orders reserved on : 09.08.2018
Orders pronounced on : 16.08.2018
Hon'ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. S.N. Terdal, Member (J)
Satya Prakash
HC (Ex.) in Delhi Police,
PIS No.28861532
Aged about 48 years
S/o Late Sh. Kishori Lal,
r/o D-355/A, Dabau Colony,
NIT Faridabad, Haryana.
....Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. Addl. D.C.P. (South-East Distt)
Nelson Mandela Rd. Basant Lok,
Munirka, New Delhi.
3. Insp. Inderjit Singh (EO)
Through Addl. D.C.P. (South-East Distt)
Nelson Mandela Rd. Basant Lok,
Munirka, New Delhi.
.....Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri K.M. Singh)
ORDER
Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A):
This Original Application is filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-
2
"(a) Call for the records of the case and set aside /quash the Order dt.15.10.2014 (Annexure A-1( and Summary of Allegations (Annexure A-2) and/or direct the respondents to keep in abeyance the departmental enquiry initiated vide order dated 15.10.2014 during the pendency of the criminal case till the defense of the applicant is disclosed in the criminal case.
Or alternatively Direct the respondents to defer the cross-
examination of Mr. Raju & Shyam Sundar till their examination before the concerned Court in the criminal case on the same charges.
(b) To award costs in favor of the applicant and
(c) To pass any order or orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just an equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant is holding the post of Head Constable (Ex.) in Delhi Police. He was booked in criminal case FIR No.15/13 dated 12.9.2013 under Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, PS Anti Corruption Branch, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, and he was arrested. On having been arrested in the said criminal case, the applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 19.9.2013.
2.1 The respondents have initiated departmental enquiry against the applicant vide order dated 15.10.2014 (Annexure A1) under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 on the allegations that while posted at PP Sriniwaspuri, PS Amar Colony, he seized JCB vehicle in case FIR No.321/2013 dated 1.9.2013 u/s 279/337 IPC, PS Amar 3 Colony and demanded Rs.5,000/- from Shri Raju Singh S/o Shri Umed Singh, R/o E-106, Vishwakarma Colony, New Delhi. Shri Raju Singh made a complaint to Anti Corruption Branch and a trap was laid. The applicant was caught red handed while demanding, accepting and obtaining Rs.5000/- as bribe from the complainant and a case FIR No.15/2013 dated 12.09.2013 u/s 7/13 POC Act PS Anti Corruption Branch, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi was registered against the applicant and he was arrested in the case on 12.9.2013. 2.2 The said disciplinary inquiry was being conducted by Inspector Inderjeet Singh, BDT/SED.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the applicant has approach this Tribunal by filing the instant OA challenging the order dated 15.10.2014 (Annexure A-1) and summary of allegations (Annexure A-2) and this Tribunal, vide ad interim order dated 13.7.2015 passed in this OA, placing reliance on the dicta of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., 1999 AIR 1416, 1999(2) SCR 257, directed the respondents to defer the cross examination of Shri Raju and Shri Shyam Sundar for a period of 14 days. 2.4 The grounds to challenge the said order as raised by the applicant in this OA are that (i) the charge-sheet is not in conformity with law; (ii) the charges discloses bias or pre- judgment of the guilt of the applicant; (iii) there is total non- 4 application of mind in issuing the charge-sheet; (iii) the chargesheet does not disclose any misconduct against the applicant; (iv) the charges are vague and are lacking in material particulars; (v) the charge-sheet has been result of mala fide; (vi) the charges/legations before the criminal Court as well as departmental authorities are same and are based on identical and similar set of facts, which are closely interlinked with each other and involves complicated questions of law and facts and the charge against the applicant are very grave in nature. Therefore, it is desirable to stay the DE proceedings till the conclusion of criminal case as held by the Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd; if the departmental enquiry initiated vide order dated 15.10.2014 is not stayed/kept in abeyance, the applicant wi0ll be forced to disclose his defense in the departmental enquiry, which will seriously prejudice his defence in the criminal case; and (vii) even if during the pendency of criminal case based on the same charge/offence, parallel DE can be initiated, in the present case at least the cross-examination of Mr. Raju & Shyam Sundar is liable to be directed to be deferred till their examination before the concerned Court in the criminal case on the same charges.
3. The respondents have also filed their counter affidavit stating therein that the parallel DE against the applicant has 5 been initiated rightly as held by this Tribunal in OA No.4362/10 - SI Rajesh Kumar vs. CP, Delhi & Ors. 3.1 They further stated that Shri Raju Singh made a complaint to Anti Corruption Branch and a trap was laid. The applicant was caught red handed while demanding, accepting and obtaining Rs.5000/- as bribe from the complainant and a case vide FIR No.15/2013 dated 12.09.2013 u/s 7/13 POC Act PS Anti Corruption Branch, Govt. of NCT of Delhi was registered against him and he was arrested in the case on 12.09.2013. The parallel DE has been initiated against the applicant as per Standing Order No.A-20 (125-2010) and the Enquiry Officer has served the summary of allegation etc. upon the applicant which is legal, valid and justified. Further by placing reliance upon the judgment of this Tribunal in OA No.4362/2010, the respondents have stated that there is no bar for simultaneously proceeding against a police officer criminally and departmentally. The only exception for simultaneous proceedings may be when the questions of law and facts involved in the matter are highly complicated and in that event only, the departmental proceedings are to await decision of the criminal trial. Such is not a case in hand. The criminal proceedings may take years together before they culminate into an order of conviction or acquittal. 3.2 They also stated that if the plea of the applicant is to be accepted then in that case police officers involved in heinous 6 crimes, or corruption, which too is extremely serious, will remain on the rolls of police while the criminal proceedings may remain pending against them. In fact, in cases in the one in hand, it is desirable that both criminal and departmental proceedings are to be resorted simultaneously. It will serve a dual purpose. If the delinquent is found to be innocent in the departmental proceedings that may be held against him, it would be better for him to have the verdict as early as possible, as surely, till such tie he may face the departmental proceedings, he will be looked down upon by everyone. If, however, he is found guilty, he has to be shown the exit door as early as possible.
3.3 They further stated that the respondents have initiated DE proceedings in pursuance of the impugned Annexure A-1 but the same has been stayed by this Tribunal vide Order dated 13.7.2015.
3.4 The respondents further stated that filing of chargesheet in case No.15/13 u/s 7/13 POC Act, PS A.C. Branch, Govt. of NCT of Delhi is a requirement of criminal proceedings. The A.C. Branch has reported that chargesheet has not been filed as the above case is pending investigation. However, the applicant has filed the instant OA to keep the DE proceedings in abeyance in which "CHARGE' has not been framed against him so far.
7
4. The applicant has not chosen to file any rejoinder in this matter as no rejoinder is on record.
5. We heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material placed on record.
6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant mainly argued that this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) and also in the case of Firoz Ahmed vs. Union of India decided by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, 2014 (4) SLR 16 (Cal.), as it is a well settled position in law that on basic principles proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, except where the departmental proceedings and criminal case based on same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common,.
7. Counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no bar for simultaneously proceeding against the applicant in criminally and departmentally, as has been held by this Tribunal on number of occasions. The only exception for simultaneous proceedings may be when the questions of law and facts involved in the matter are highly complicated. In that event only the departmental proceedings are to await decision of the criminal trial. Such is not a case in hand. The criminal proceedings may take years together before they culminate into an order of conviction and acquittal. Counsel 8 for the respondents further submitted that the present case does not involved complicated facts.
8. In the case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale v. Union of India[(2012) 13 SCC 142], the Court held that there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously. The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced but even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex question of fact and law. Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. We also of the view that this case also not involved any complex question of fact and law.
9. It is also to note that acquittal in criminal proceedings on the same set of charges, per se, does not entitle the delinquent to claim immunity from disciplinary proceedings, as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of C.M.D.U.C.O. vs. P.C.Kakkar, AIR 2003 SC 1571. In the same way, departmental proceedings may be continued even after retirement of the employee. (U.P.S.S.Corp.Ltd. vs. K.S.Tandon, AIR 2008 SC 1235).
9
10. Considering the above judgments, this Court is of the firm opinion that the procedure for taking disciplinary action against a Government servant is lengthy and detailed one, giving maximum opportunity to the government servant to prove his innocence. A Government employee is expected to perform his duties with utmost diligence, efficiency, economy and effectiveness. The Government procedures are lengthy in order to ensure that the Government employees perform their responsibilities without any pressure or exterior considerations. However, at the same time, it ensures discipline amongst the employees and shows the door to the employees who have become dead wood and do not perform as per expectations of public in general and his department in particular. Disciplinary proceedings are conducted to ensure that the morale of the employees as a whole is boosted. It ought to be noted that criminal proceedings will last for years and this can lead to loss of evidences and thereby staying departmental disciplinary proceedings from being conducted simultaneously would lead to gross miscarriage of justice. Also, it is pertinent to note the fact that the object of such departmental proceedings is not to penalise but to assist in restoring the morale of Government servants. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the Court has to strike a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on one hand and the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of 10 the ongoing disciplinary proceedings on the other which will not have any adverse impact if is conducted simultaneously.
11. The cases cited by the applicant supra are distinguishable on facts and as such the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
12. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the present OA, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, we expect that the respondents will proceed in the departmental enquiry initiated against the applicant as per the procedures prescribed for this purpose and the applicant is also directed to cooperate in the departmental enquiry proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs.
(S.N. Terdal) (Nita Chowdhury) Member (J) Member (A) /ravi/