Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Umed Singh vs Commissioner Of Police (Delhi Police) on 12 December, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.29/2011 This the 12th day of December 2011 Honble Shri M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Smt. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) Umed Singh PIS No.28741040 Police Training School Jarodha Kalan, Delhi ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Y.S. Chauhan) Versus 1. Commissioner of Police (Delhi Police) Police Head Quarters IP Estate, ITO New Delhi-2 2. Joint Commissioner of Police Special Branch, Asaf Ali Road Delhi 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police Special Branch, Asaf Ali Road Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Amit Anand) O R D E R
Shri M L Chauhan:
The applicant while working as ASI, departmental proceedings were initiated against him under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 vide order dated 27.1.2009 on the allegations that while posted in North West Zone/SB in the year 2007, the character verification report (CVR) in respect of a recruit constable in Delhi Police, Vivek Mathur s/o Shri Rajbir Singh r/o Village Karola, Delhi was received in Special Branch. The CVR was sent to North West Zone/SB vide No.1042-CVR dated 17.1.2008. He conducted the inquiry and submitted a clear report to CVR Branch/SB. Further allegation leveled upon the applicant is that on the basis of his report, a clear report was forwarded to DCP/IV Bn. DAP, Delhi by CVR Branch/SB vide letter dated 11.2.2008. The DCP/4th Bn. DAP vide office letter dated 2.5.2008 had requested the DCP/Special Branch to provide a factual report in the matter since the recruit, Vivek Mathur had himself mentioned in the relevant column of the attestation form that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 356, 379, 411 and 34 IPC at PS Prashant Vihar, Delhi in which he was acquitted by the court. Pursuant to this, the inquiry was marked to Vigilance/Special Branch and SI Randhir Singh of Vigilance/SB submitted his report dated 15.5.2008 along with copy of FIR No.539 dated 12.6.2004 under Sections 379, 356 and 34 IPC at PS Prashant Vihar, Delhi and a copy of judgment dated 5.8.2005 of the trial court. In the inquiry report submitted by the Vigilance/Special Branch, it has been held that the ASI had done the CVR inquiry half heartedly and failed to give the detail of the crime and judicial verdict in his report. Consequent of this report, a regular inquiry was ordered against the applicant and ultimately the disciplinary authority vide impugned order dated 22.12.2009 imposed a penalty of forfeiture of three years increment with permanent effect upon the applicant. Thereafter the applicant filed an appeal and the appellate authority vide order dated 9.3.2010 modified the punishment for penalty of forfeiture of three years increment for permanent effect to penalty of forfeiting his one year increment with permanent effect. It is these orders, which are under challenge before the Tribunal.
2. The grievance of the applicant in this case is that he has submitted the report after checking the record of PS Kanjhawala and found nothing adverse against the applicant and also no entry was found in the beat book (Register No.9 Part III) of Village Karala, as such there is no fault in his report at all.
3. The applicant has further contended that the matter was even re-investigated by SI Randhir Singh, who submitted his report on 15.5.2008 and based upon the report a show cause notice was issued to the applicant on 5.9.2008, thereby stating that in the report submitted by the applicant he has mentioned that there is nothing adverse against the candidate, whereas the report submitted by Shri Randhir Singh reveals that Vivek @ Kaku was involved in a case under Sections 379, 356 and 34 IPC at PS Prashant Vihar, Delhi and was acquitted due to non appearance of witnesses. The applicant submitted his reply to the report of Shri Randhir Singh, thereby stating that in the vigilance report there were only five columns/questions and in none of the said columns/questions, it has been mentioned that requirement of giving details in respect of question No.2 is whether in the record a candidate has been convicted or he has been acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt. Since, according to the applicant, the candidate stands already acquitted in a criminal case and the factum of such case has already been mentioned by him in declaration on the basis of which report was submitted, there was no requirement of giving detail particulars regarding the case registered against the candidate at PS Prashant Vihar, Delhi, in which he was acquitted.
4. The applicant has further pleaded that thereafter another show cause notice dated 5.9.2008 was received as to why he should not be censured for the aforesaid conduct (Annexure A-6). The applicant has also submitted his reply thereby stating that there was no fault on his part to submit the report and even on re-investigation by SI Randhir Singh, the report submitted by the applicant was found to be true and thereafter the respondents withdrew the said show cause notice vide order dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure A-8). It is only after the withdrawal of the show cause notice dated 10.10.2008 on 27.1.2009 the respondents decided to proceed with the inquiry. It is on the basis of these facts the applicant has filed the present OA, thereby praying for quashing the impugned orders.
5. Notice of this application was given to the respondents. The respondents have filed their reply affidavit wherein it has been stated that the CVR submitted by the applicant clearly proves that he had done the inquiry in a very casual manner by verifying the records of only PS Kanjhawala while the candidate had himself mentioned in his application form that a case was registered against him in PS Prashant Vihar.
6. The respondents have further stated that if the applicant has checked the attestation form before conducting verification, wherein Vivek Mathur has written that he had been involved in a case at PS Prashant Vihar under Sections 379, 356 and 411, he would certainly know the fact about the case. It is also stated that the applicant had neither scrutinized the information placed on record, nor visited PS Prashant Vihar to verify the contents of the form. Had he visited PS Prashant Vihar, he could not have given the detailed report regarding involvement in a criminal case, which was registered at PS Prashant Vihar.
7. The applicant has filed the rejoinder affidavit, thereby reiterating his submissions made in the OA.
8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record.
9. It is not disputed that attestation form of one Shri Vivek Mathur was marked to the applicant for the purpose of character verification. In the said attestation form, the candidate has categorically mentioned about a criminal case under Sections 356, 379, 411 and 34 IPC at PS Prashant Vihar, Delhi and his acquittal by the trial court. Based upon these particulars given by a candidate, i.e., Vivek Mathur in his attestation form, the applicant was to submit his report, qua five columns/questions. In reply to question No.1, the candidate answered Yes and in reply to question No.2, the candidate answered No. At this stage it will be useful to quote question Nos. 1 & 2 of the report, which thus read:-
1. kaya ghosna patra mein diye gaye thathya theek hai?
Yes
2. kaya record par ummeedwaar ke khilaaf koi sazaa ya shanka hai? Yadi hai to vivran dai.
No
10. The case set up by the respondents against the applicant is that the applicant should have given detailed particulars regarding the acquittal of the candidate in criminal case mentioned in the attestation form and the applicant instead of giving details of the crime and judicial verdict in his support has simply written No. The applicant in his report has categorically stated that there was no need to give detail information qua the query raised in question No.1, as the candidate has himself mentioned about his involvement in the criminal case and acquittal by the Court in his attestation form, more particularly when the applicant in question No.1 has specifically stated that the declaration given by the candidate in the attestation form is correct. Thus, according to the applicant, he cannot be held guilty of negligence and gross misconduct while submitting the report.
11. We have given due consideration to the contentions raised by the applicant, which cannot be out rightly rejected, more particularly when the Hindi version of question No.2 is confusing. If question No.2 is read along with question No.1, it cannot be said that the applicant is guilty of gross misconduct, so as to render him liable for major penalty. In any event, if the applicant has submitted the vigilance report without looking into the record of PS Prashant Vihar where the FIR against the candidate under Sections 379, 356 and 34 IPC at PS Prashant Vihar, Delhi was lodged and has conducted an inquiry half heartedly, at the most, the applicant should have been held guilty of minor penalty. In any case, at one stage, the respondents have issued a show cause notice for imposition of penalty of censure on the applicant after considering the reply of the applicant to the show cause notice. It is at subsequent stage that the respondents decided to withdraw the show cause notice of penalty of censure upon the applicant and proceeded to initiate the inquiry for major penalty. As already stated above, we are of the view that it is not a case, which warrants imposition of major penalty upon the applicant, more particularly in view of the fact that question No.2 was confusing.
12. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of the present OA and quash the impugned orders. Matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to impose any minor penalty upon the applicant as per the provisions contained in Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. No costs.
( Smt. Manjulika Gautam ) ( M L Chauhan ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/