Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ombir Singh (Inspector) vs Commissioner Of Police on 24 May, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 3434/2009
New Delhi, this the 24th day of May, 2010
HONBLE MR. L.K. JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A)
HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J)
Ombir Singh (Inspector)
No.D-1/784
S/o Late Shri Goverdhan Singh
R/o Quarter No.C-36,
P.S. Geeta Colony,
Delhi-110031. ..Applicant
By Advocate: Shri S.C. Sagar.
Versus
Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters,
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi. ..Respondents
By Advocate: Shri M. Chander Mani Bhardwaj for
Ms. Rashmi Chopra.
O R D E R
By Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Applicant has challenged order dated 13.7.2009 whereby he has been censured and also order dated 16.10.2009 whereby his appeal has been rejected.
2. It is stated by the applicant that a show cause notice dated 12.3.2009 was served on the applicant with the following allegations:-
That on 30.11.2008 an information from PCR vide D.D. No. 30-A was received in P.S. K.M. Pur that Truck No. HR 47 A-0980. loaded with iron rods hit jhuggi in East Kidwai Nagar and one person got injured who was admitted into Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi by HC Ram Avtar No.718/PCR, I/C E-93. This D.D. entry was entrusted to HC Ranbir Singh, 35/SD who collected M.L.C. No.145279/08 of Varun S/o Shivalat Paswan R/o Jhuggi, East Kidwai Nagar. The patient was fit for statement and truck driver Mr. Nar Singh S/o Ram Chand Gautam was also present in the hospital but I.O. HC Ranbir Singh did not register the case and filed the call vide D.D. No. 26-B dated 30.11.2008 P.S. K.M. Pur on the pretext that injured persons family members have settled the matter amicably with the truck driver after taking money from him. Mr. Varun Paswan later died in the hospital on 6.1.2009 and I.O. got conducted the proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C. On scrutiny of inquest papers and original Daily Diary resister, it is revealed that HC Ranbir Singh No.35/SD intentionally did not place the D.D. No. 30-A dated 29/30.11.2008 P.S. K.M. Pur in which truck number is mentioned on the inquest file. There is discrepancy in the copy of D.D. No. 31-A dated 30.11.2008 P.S. K.M. Pur, placed in the inquest file and its entry in the Daily Diary register. Material facts regarding hitting of Jhuggi wall by Truck is not mentioned in the copy placed in the inquest file. I.O. has written in the brief history in the application to autopsy surgeon that relatives of the deceased did not express any doubt regarding his death, further mentioning it as an accidental death while it was a case of accident. Thus HC Ranbir Singh No.35/SD did not take the legal action properly on D.D. No. 30-A dated 30.11.2008 P.S. K.M. Pur and failed to register a case under proper section of law instead converted the matter into proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. He has tampered with evidence and twisted the facts in inquest file intentionally with mala fide intention and hence converted a case of 304- IPC to 174 Cr.P.C. after the victim died very cleverly having filed the call vide D.D. No. 26-B dated 30.11.2000 on the pretext of a compromise with family members. The right course of action should have been for the I.O. to have registered a case of accident on the very Ist instance, i.e., on 30.11.2008 instead he not only tried to mislead but also twisted facts in order to file the call the same day. The PCR call entered at D.D. No.30-A dated 30.11.2008 had all the details which he conveniently and deliberately did not make part of inquest file. You, Inspector Ombir Singh No.D-I/784, SHO/K.M. Pur failed to monitor the action taken by I.O. in the instant matter which shows your casual attitude towards such cases.
The above act on your part amounts to gross negligence, carelessness and dereliction in the discharge of your official duty.
You are, therefore, called upon to show cause as to why your conduct should not be censured. Your reply, if any, in this regard should reach the undersigned within 15 days from the date of its receipt, failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in your defence and the notice will be decided on its merit.
3. Applicant gave his reply. However, without considering his reply, disciplinary authority censured the conduct of the applicant vide order dated 13.3.2009. Being aggrieved, applicant filed his appeal but that has also been rejected vide order dated 16.10.2009. Applicant has challenged these orders on the ground that since the matter was compromised between the parties vide DD Entry No.31-A so HC Ranbir Singh had not taken any action on the basis of said D.D. Entry, hence applicant was not required to probe the matter any further. No complaint was made to the applicant by the injured or family members till 6.1.2009 meaning thereby that they had approached him after 38 days for registering case against offending vehicle owner No.HR-47-A-0980. Before that no statement was given either by the injured or his family members or HC Ram Avtar No.718/PCR, therefore, naturally D.D. Entry No.31-A dated 30.11.2008, 5-A and 30-B dated 6.1.2009 were kept pending. Since it is the role of Investigating Officer to investigate and make the D.D. Entry, applicant cannot be penalized by the wrong actions of the I.O., if any, specifically when no action has been taken against the I.O., H.C. Ranbir Singh. It, therefore, amounts to discrimination. It is not feasible or desirable for the SHO to go to each and every spot and investigate particularly the trivial matters. Since the parties had arrived at a compromise, the applicant was not at any fault. He has thus prayed that the censure may be dropped.
4. We have heard the counsel for the applicant.
5. Perusal of the order shows that all the contentions raised by the applicant were duly considered by the authorities. Applicant was even given hearing in the orderly room but after considering his reply disciplinary authority was of the view that the applicant, who was working as an SHO, had been slack in his supervision. They did not appreciate the defence of the applicant that as an SHO, it is not feasible or desirable to go to each and every spot and investigate specially when a mans life had been lost. It was specifically mentioned that if as an SHO he cannot monitor, supervise and control acts of his subordinate, then the applicant should quit as he has not even bothered to issue a memo to his Head Constable working under him. We find no illegality in this reasoning. Moreover, respondents have specifically stated in their reply that action was taken against HC Ranbir Singh also as departmental enquiry had been ordered against him on 13.3.2009 while applicant was only issued show cause notice for censure. In view of above it is wrong to suggest that he has been discriminated against. After all as an SHO, it is his duty to supervise his subordinates and to guide them. He did not monitor the action taken on the DD register and MC Register properly, which resulted in deliberate delay. If only applicant had asked for progress report in a routine manner from the I.O., the case could have been registered much earlier. It is specifically noted by the appellate authority that it is his duty to guide the IO for further course of action to be taken in time. Moreover, when a mans life has been lost, it was his duty to verify the facts. This clearly shows that the authorities have applied their mind before issuing order of censure. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the case. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER) (L.K. JOSHI) Member (J) Vice Chairman (A) Rakesh