Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Insp. Ram Kumar vs Union Of India on 15 May, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No. 2280/2008 New Delhi, this the 15th day of May, 2009 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE MR. L.K.JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A) Insp. Ram Kumar, Age 54 S/o Late Shri Dalip Singh, R/o H/27/C, SFS Flats, Saket New Delhi Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Arun Bhardwaj) Versus 1. Union of India, Through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi 2. Joint Commissioner of Police, Northern Range, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central District, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Respondents (By Advocate: Smt. Sumedha Sharma) ORDER
Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) A show cause notice dated 15.03.2007 issued to Inspector Ram Kumar, the Applicant in this OA, culminated in the punishment of censure by the disciplinary authority by his order dated 6.06.2007. The appeal of the Applicant against the aforesaid order was rejected by the competent authority by his order dated 26.03.2008. The show cause notice, the order inflicting the punishment of censure and the order of the appellate authority, maintaining the order of the disciplinary authority, have been challenged in this OA.
2. The Applicant, an Inspector in Delhi Police, was posted as Station House Officer (SHO), Kashmere Gate at the relevant time. On 15.03.2007, a show cause notice was served on him. The relevant portion of the show cause notice has been extracted below:
On 9.7.1999, a parcel with 7 stamps (of denomination of Rs.10 each) affixed on it was presented for booking at GPO, Kashmire Gate. On suspicion of forgery in postal stamps, local police was called for enquiry and the postal stamps were sent to Security Press, Nasik for detection of forgery. On receipt of positive report from the Press a Case FIR No.120/1200, u/s 259 IPC, PS Kashmere Gate was registered on 05.04.2000 and the investigation of the case was entrusted to SI Neeraj Kumar. On 11.9.2000 the challan/charge sheet was prepared by then SHO/Kashmiri Gate, Inspr. Ram Kumar and thereafter the case file was given to the IInd IO SI Rishal Singh for investigation and compliance of objections raised by Prosecution Branch. On 22.2.01 the charge sheet was filed in the court by the IInd I.O. SI Rishal Singh.
The Honble Cout of Sh. Ajay Panday, MM, Delhi had passed the following observations at the stage of framing of charge against the accused person on 25.1.07 in the above mentioned case:-
1. I.O. has not at all bothered to collect any material as to from where the alleged counterfeit stamps were procured by the accused, if it was at all done.
2. There was even no interrogation of accused Virender nor any disclosure statement for removing doubt about the procurement of the counterfeit stamps.
3. It is just unimaginable that the person who was working as labour could also have printed these 7 stamps.
4. The lapses in the investigation of IO have allowed any racket of printing and distributing counterfeit stamps and might have dented National Economy to incalculable extent.
5. The alleged accused was booked on the basis of co-accused Raj Kumar who presented articles with counterfeit stamps.
6. It appears a case of no investigation.
7. It was further required from the IO to investigate the source of procurement of alleged counterfeit stamps.
8. Some racket might have been unearthed.
9. Such type of investigation raises serious doubts, either about the capacity and efficiency of IO to discharge his primary duties of investigating and preventing crime or about his integrity.
Inspr. Ram Kumar, No. D-1/760, the then SHO/Kashmiri Gate, Hauz Quazi has filed the charge sheet in the Honble Court without making any improvement in the investigation and failed to trace the main source of procurement of counterfeit stamps. The source of counterfeit stamps could be found out by making enquiries at all India level to know whether such kind of counterfeit stamps were in circulation or detected earlier and by further analyzing the printing pattern/material. The accused persons were booked under relevant sections being possession of counterfeit stamps and using them known to be counterfeit and not for making those counterfeit stamps.
3. The Applicant filed a reply to the show cause notice, which is placed at pages 19 to 21 of the paper book. The disciplinary authority, after considering his written reply, awarded the punishment of censure to the Applicant by order dated 6.06.2007. The Applicant preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the appellate authority by order dated 26.03.2008. The learned counsel for the Applicant, in his submissions, has laid stress on the fact that the strictures by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, reproduced in the show cause notice, are against the Investigating Officer (IO) and not against the Applicant. There were two IOs in the case, namely, SI Neeraj Kumar and SI Rishal Singh. The case of suspected forgery in postal stamps was first registered in April, 2000 and the investigation of the case was entrusted to SI Neeraj Kumar. Thereafter the case was given to the second IO, namely, SI Rishal Singh for investigation and compliance of objections raised by the Prosecution Branch. A show cause notice was issued to both the IOs also in this case, yet both of them were let off by giving them only a warning, contends the learned counsel for the Applicant. The learned counsel would also contend that the Applicant has only been charged for gross negligence, carelessness and dereliction in discharge of his official duties in the show cause notice and this would not amount to misconduct. In this context, he would place reliance on Union of India and others Vs. J. Ahmed, AIR 1979 SC 1022. It is further the case of the Applicant that the case has still not been resolved and the investigation agencies have still not been able to find any clue about the source of supply of the fake postal stamps. The investigation of the case was transferred to the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), which had also not been able to make any headway in this matter. The learned counsel has submitted a copy of notesheet dated 1.04.2009 of the Inspector, Legal Cell of the Police Headquarters to substantiate this claim.
4. The learned counsel for the Respondents has strenuously defended the action taken against the Applicant. It is contended that while there were two IOs in this case, yet the Applicant filed the challan in the Court. As SHO, it was the responsibility of the Applicant to have closely scrutinized the documents presented by the IOs and to have asked for further investigation, if there were any lacunae in the report of the IOs. She would contend that it is the duty of the SHO of any Police Station to carefully go through the report of the IOs, being the Chief Investigating Officer of the Police Station under Rule 22.1 (3) of the Punjab Police Rules. The challan is signed by him and it is incumbent on him to scrutinize it for any shortcoming before presenting it to the Court. She would contend that the orders, if any, warning SI Neeraj Kumar and SI Rishal Singh the two IOs in this case, would not in any way mitigate the charge against the Applicant. It is urged on behalf of Respondents that further enquiries at all India level should have been made before finally putting up the challan. She would contend that the Applicant completely failed to guide the IOs properly.
5. We have given our careful consideration to the rival contentions and have perused the record placed before us.
6. It is not an acceptable argument that the strictures of the Court are against the IOs and not against the Applicant, which would not make him responsible for any lapse in the matter. It is not contested by the Applicant that the reports of the IOs were presented to him and that it was his responsibility to carefully scrutinize those reports and in case of any lacuna, direct the IOs to further investigate the matter. The Applicant was not merely performing the functions of a post office by merely passing the report from the IOs to the Court. We are also unable to accept the argument that the charge against the Applicant in the show cause notice would not constitute any misconduct. This Tribunal had considered the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in J. Ahmeds case (supra) in OAs No.265/2008 with OA No.269/2008 (Inder Singh Vs. UOI and anr.) decided on 21.11.2008. The following observations were made in the aforesaid order:
8. The Honourable Supreme Court considered the issue regarding what constitute misconduct in J. Ahmed (cited supra). In this case, J. Ahmed, an officer of the State Civil Service of Assam, promoted to the IAS, was working as Deputy Commissioner of Nowgong District of Assam. There were large scale disturbances in Nowgong District during the period when the Applicant was posted there as Deputy Commissioner. After an enquiry into the causes of the disturbances, charges were communicated to Shri J. Ahmed, which culminated in his removal from service. The charges communicated to the Respondent before the Honourable Supreme Court (J. Ahmed) were as follows :
"(i) Completely failed to take any effective preventive measures against widespread disturbances breaking out in Nowgong District in spite of adequate warning being conveyed.
(ii) Showed complete lack of leadership when the disturbances actually did break out and failed to give proper direction to your subordinate Magistrates and coordinate co-operations with the police to restore Law and Order;
(iii) Did not personally visit the scenes of disturbances within the town or in the Rural areas, in time to take personal control of the situation and to exercise necessary supervision;
(iv) Did not keep Government informed of the actual picture and extent of the disturbances;
(v) Showed complete inaptitude, lack of foresight, lack of firmness and capacity to take quick and firm decision and were, thus largely responsible for complete break down of Law and Order in Nowgong town as well as the rural areas of Nowgong District. The Honourable Supreme Court has considered whether the general lack of leadership qualities or easy going or low hearted approach to duty would constitute misconduct. In this context, the definition of misconduct in Strouds Judicial Dictionary has been quoted in the judgement, which is as follows :
Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct. The Honourable Supreme Court has held that A single act of omission or error of judgment would ordinarily not constitute misconduct though if such error or omission results in serious or atrocious consequences the same may amount to misconduct as was held by this Court in P. H. Kalyani v. Air France, Calcutta, (1964) 2 SCR 104: (AIR 1963 SC 1756), wherein it was found that the two mistakes committed by the employee while checking the load-sheets and balance charts would involve possible accident to the aircraft and possible loss of human life and, therefore, the negligence in work in the context of serious consequences was treated as misconduct. It is, however, difficult to believe that lack of efficiency or attainment of highest standards in discharge of duty attached to public office would ipso facto constitute misconduct. There may be negligence in performance of duty and a lapse in performance of duty or error of judgment in evaluating the developing situation may be negligence in discharge of duty but would not constitute misconduct unless the consequences directly attributable to negligence would be such as to be irreparable or the resultant damage would be so heavy that the degree of culpability would be very high. An error can be indicative of negligence and the degree of culpability may indicate the grossness of the negligence. Carelessness can often be productive of more harm than deliberate wickedness or malevolence.
6. It will be seen that the case in hand is clearly distinguishable from the case of J. Ahmed (supra) in as much as the charge against the Applicant is not merely of carelessness but of dereliction in the discharge of his official duties. The Applicant was expected as Station House Officer of the Police Station to carefully scrutinize the report submitted to him before filing the challan in the Court of Law. Since he made absolutely no contribution to the report of the IOs, he has failed to perform his duty, as is expected of a police officer in his position. It would have been another matter, had he made some attempt to direct the investigation and that attempt had not been found to be adequate. However, not making any attempt at all to improve the course of investigation, would have an element of willfulness in the non-performance of duties. We are of the considered opinion that the aforementioned judicial precedent will not, in any way, advance the cause of the Applicant.
7. We are also not convinced that different punishment given to the IOs would in any way help the Applicant. The IOs have only been given warning whereas the Applicant has been awarded the punishment of censure. When the disciplinary authority is convinced of the lapse on the part of the charged officer, it is entirely his discretion to decide on the quantum of punishment. Censure is the least of the punishments in the hierarchy of prescribed punishments and, therefore, no fault can be found with the orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities. It is also irrelevant, in our view, to plead that the matter regarding fake stamps is still unresolved and no clue about the source of fake stamps has been found. The charge against the Applicant is that he has not supervised the investigation properly and has been negligent and careless and derelict in the performance of his duties. This charge, in our view, has been proved and amounts to misconduct.
8. On the basis of the above considerations, we find no merit in the OA, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
( L.K. Joshi ) ( V.K. Bali ) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman /dkm/