Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Constable Naresh Kumar vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 6 January, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application Nos.4658 of 2011 This the 6th day of January, 2012 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Constable Naresh Kumar 4887/DAP (Then No.4053/T), 1st Bn. DAP (Then 5th Battalion), Delhi Police, PHQ, Guard, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Applicant ( By Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate ) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through its Secretary, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Commissioner of Police, Delhi, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. Shri Satish Chandra, Special Commissioner of Police, Armed Police, Delhi. 4. Shri B. S. Bola, Dy. Commissioner of Police, 1st Bn., DAP, Delhi. 5. Shri Ram Chander Meena, Inspector/T.I. R. K. Puram, New Delhi (E.O.) Respondents O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Sequel to a regular departmental enquiry, Naresh Kumar, a constable in Delhi Police, the applicant herein, has been inflicted the punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service permanently, vide order dated 12.03.2009 passed by the disciplinary authority. The appeal preferred against the order aforesaid has since been dismissed vide order dated 24.01.2011. These are the orders which are under challenge in this Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. Brief facts of the case as may emanate from the pleadings and accompanying documents reveal that the allegations against the applicant subject matter of the departmental enquiry were that on 05.02.2003, an oral complaint came to be made before ACP/PRG/Traffic by one Suresh Chhida Ram, alleging that the applicant, posted with ZO/SI Desha Singh of Sarita Vihar flyover T point was demanding illegal entry money of Rs.500/- for plying his dumper. The complainant alleged that the applicant had told him that ZO/SI Desha Singh had given some stickers, which were to be sold at Rs.500/- each per vehicle for full protection against prosecution for one month, and that the applicant had threatened him to impound his vehicle if he was not to purchase the sticker for Rs.500/-. On 06.02.2003, a PRG team consisting of Inspr. Parvinder Singh, Inspr. Raj Singh and SI Rajiv Ranjan was constituted to verify the authenticity of the oral complaint. The PRG team reached the residence of the complainant at Village Badarpur on the same day, and asked him to produce one currency note of Rs.500/- denomination, which he produced, which was signed by Inspr. Parvinder Singh and its number was noted down. The currency note was handed over to the complainant after preparing a handing over memo, with direction that the same was to be given to the traffic staff (posted near Sarita Vihar flyover traffic booth) on demand for providing sticker, and to signal the PRG staff sitting in the dumper by rotating hand over his head once the sticker was purchased and the amount was paid. SI Rajiv Ranjan remained seated in the dumper along with the complainant. Inspr. Parvinder Singh and Inspr. Raj Singh followed the dumper in a private car. The dumper started moving from Badarpur Border towards Sarita Vihar at about 12.15 p.m., and the complainant noticed the same traffic constable, i.e., the applicant, in civil clothes who had asked him to purchase hassle free sticker for Rs.500/- the other day. He approached the applicant and after striking deal with him, obtained one sticker from him after paying the signed currency note of Rs.500/- denomination. The complainant thereafter signaled to SI Rajiv Ranjan, who informed Inspr. Parvinder singh and Inspr. Raj Singh of PRG team. The team had already reached near the traffic booth, and apprehended the applicant who was in civil clothes. Thirty-six stickers of bright red colour in heart shape were recovered from left pocket of the applicant, and the signed currency note was also recovered from his right pocket. The applicant was asked to give his personal search, but he escaped from the spot. He was given a chase by SI Rajiv Ranjan, who stopped chasing after some distance fearing injury to the applicant as he entered in the jungle of Jasola village. In the meanwhile, Inspr. Parvinder Singh and Inspr. Raj Singh inspected the traffic booth and recovered thirteen more stickers of wheel shape having six spokes in each of green and white colour combination, along with one permit of vehicle and two driving licences. Photocopies of the permit and driving licences were obtained and originals were handed over to Kalkaji circle office staff for needful. The complainant identified the thirteen stickers as of the same type which were sold in the month of January, 2003 at the rate of Rs.500/- each to commercial vehicle drivers as hassle free stickers. The recovered stickers along with the one purchased by the complainant after paying the signed currency note of Rs.500/- to the applicant and another Rs.500/- currency note were taken into possession vide seizure memos. Later on, one Const. Balbir of Kalkaji traffic circle performing duty at Okhla Tank also identified the person wearing civil clothes at traffic booth near Sarita Vihar flyover as the applicant, and gave his written statement in that regard, which was duly attested by TI/Kalkaji. On checking of the daily diary and duty roster of Kalkaji traffic circle, it was confirmed that the applicant was deputed for duty on 06.02.2003 at Madanpur Khadar traffic point and had departed for his point of duty vide DD no.4 at 7.40 a.m. He was present at traffic booth near Sarita Vihar in civil clothes selling stickers to commercial vehicle drivers, and, therefore, the identity of the applicant as disclosed by the complainant was further confirmed by Const. Balbir, as well as from the record of the circle. The enquiry that was held against the applicant on the allegations referred to above, culminated into a report holding the charge framed against him as proved. The selling of stickers was a well organized and planned handiwork with active involvement in the malpractice. A joint departmental enquiry was initiated against the applicant and his co-defaulters, Inspr. Khilari Ram Meena and SI Desha Singh. The applicant was awarded the punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 25.08.2004. The appeal preferred by him against the said order came to be dismissed vide order dated 05.07.2005. Constrained under the circumstances, the applicant filed an Original Application bearing OA No.95/2006 in this Tribunal, which came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 06.03.2006. The order impugned in the OA aforesaid was set aside and the applicant was ordered to be reinstated, but the respondents were set at liberty to proceed against the applicant from the stage of prior approval of competent authority as required under rule 15(2) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 1980). It may be mentioned at this stage that the orders of the authorities were set aside by the Tribunal only on the technical ground that prior approval as envisaged under rule 15(2) of the Rules of 1980, to proceed against the applicant departmentally, had not been obtained. After obtaining such approval, the applicant was again tried. The Departmental enquiry was started from initial stage after obtaining the approval as mentioned above. The enquiry officer, once again returned a finding of guilt against the applicant, and agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority, this time inflicted a lesser punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service permanently, vide order dated 12.03.2009. The applicant without filing appeal against the order aforesaid, directly filed OA No.943/2010 in this Tribunal, which was disposed of by issuing direction to the appellate authority to decide the matter on merits. Pursuant to directions given by this Tribunal in the OA aforesaid, a detailed order has now been passed by the appellate authority, whereby, the order passed by the disciplinary authority inflicting the punishment upon the applicant, as mentioned above, has been confirmed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel representing the applicant and with his assistance examined the records of the case. The first OA of the applicant, as mentioned above, was allowed only on a technical point with permission/liberty to the respondents to proceed against him after obtaining necessary approval as envisaged under rule 15(2) of the Rules of 1980.
4. Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel representing the applicant, has only raised two-fold submissions. It is first urged by him that Suresh Chhida Ram, the complainant of the case, at whose instance the PRG team conducted the raid, has not supported the prosecution version, and further that there are contradictions in the statements of other witnesses that have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Having heard the learned counsel, we find no merit whatsoever in either of the contentions as mentioned above. In the present case, we find sufficient evidence to sustain the finding of guilt. It is not in dispute, and has been even otherwise proved, that the applicant was deputed at the place on the date and time when the PRG team conducted the raid. Shri R. K. Jha, Addl. DCP, Railways, who appeared as PW-2, stated that on 05.02.2003 the complainant met him in his office and complained that one constable at Sarita Vihar T-point was demanding Rs.500/- for purchasing a sticker, which was to be pasted in the front wind screen of his dumper, so that no traffic challan would be done at the said point for the period of one month. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Shri Jha. He had no reason whatsoever to make a false statement. It would be rather proved from the statement made by him that it is the complainant who has turned hostile, and the reason could be only one, that the complainant may have been won over by the applicant. Inspr. Parvinder singh, examined as PW-3, stated that on verbal orders of ACP Shri R. K. Jha, he prepared one raiding party consisting of Inspr. Raj Singh and SI Rajiv Ranjan, along with him, and around 12 p.m. they went at the residence of the complainant, where he told them that the applicant was selling the sticker every month for Rs.500/-, in return whereof the vehicle would not be challaned. He fully supported the prosecution case. Likewise, Inspr. Raj Singh, examined as PW-4, and SI Rajiv Ranjan, PW-5, supported the case of the department. Const. Ashok Kumar, who was examined as PW-6, on records proved the posting of the applicant at the relevant time. To the same effect is the statement of PW-7 Const. Raj Pal. HC Darshan Kumar, PW-8, and Const. Balbir, PW-9, have also supported the prosecution case. Minor contradictions in the statements of witnesses, which are not vital, and we may mention here that no such vital contradictions have been pointed out during the course of arguments, would not vitiate the findings of the enquiry officer, so confirmed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities. It rather appears to us that the applicant has been leniently dealt with. It may be recalled that in the first instance, the applicant was dismissed from service. It appears that it is only because of the prolonged litigation that the applicant may have been let-off with a lighter punishment.
5. Finding no merit in this Original Application, we dismiss the same in limine.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/