Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Abhishek Verma vs Comm. Of Police on 18 May, 2023
1
OA No.1638 of 2020
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.1638/2020
Reserved on: 09.05.2023
Pronounced on: 18.05.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A)
Abhishek Verma (Aged 35 years)
S/o Sh. Phool Chand Verma,
R/o Q.No.5/37, Type-III,
Delhi Police Staff Quarters,
Behind Delhi Cantt. Police Station,
New Delhi- 110 010.
Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police,
Range No.D-4709,
PIS No.16090082
1st BN. Delhi Armed Police,
New Polie Lines, Kingsway amp, Delhi.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Dr. Kanwal Sapra)
Versus
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters,
Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi.
2. The Joint Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Armed Police,
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi.
3. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
1st BN, Delhi Armed Police,
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Sameer Sharma)
2
OA No.1638 of 2020
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A):
Learned counsel for the applicant stated as under:-
1.1 A show cause notice for censure was issued to the applicant on the allegations that a case vide FIR No.436/1 dated 20.09.2016 u/s 379 IPC had been registered at P.S. Timarpur, Delhi on the complaint of one Shri Shailesh Kumar s/o Sh. Suresh Chand R/o H.No.484-C, Gali No.4, Krishna Nagar Bye Pass Bagh, Ghaziabad (UP) regarding theft of his Truck No.UP-31-
T-5569 along with articles therein. Initially investigation of the said case was entrusted to the applicant. Subsequent to the transfer of the applicant, investigation was handed over to ASI Rishikesh. 1.2 After investigation, no clue could be found about the stolen truck and articles, hence, an untraced report was filed by local police before the Court of Ms. Neeti Suri Mishra, Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi on 21.04.2018. The Court vide its order dated 20.07.2018 observed that "the owner submits that zero investigation was conducted by police officials in this case. The Truck in question carrying goods worth Rs.28 lacs which was being driven by his driver namely 3 OA No.1638 of 2020 Jitender Singh. The truck was looted by 04 persons and even the driver of his truck was badly injured by those persons. He further stated that the offenders committed robbery of truck along with the goods and the truck was later recovered from Raj Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad (UP). The driver was not taken for medical treatment in spite of the fact that he was bleeding from his head and other parts of the body." 1.3 On receipt of the above observation of the Ld. M.M., the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice for censure to the applicant alleging therein that the facts of the case reveal that commission of offence was a serious offence because of which untraced report was not accepted. It was further alleged in the show cause notice that there seems to be a serious lapse on the part of the applicant being previous IO of the case. Moreover, from perusal of diary, it is revealed that no efforts were made by the IO to get sketch of the offenders prepared by taking assistance of the truck driver.
1.4 The applicant submitted his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice on 14.02.2019. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the applicant‟s reply, 4 OA No.1638 of 2020 imposed the punishment of „Censure‟ upon him vide order dated 03.05.2019. Aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal dated nil which was also rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 06.11.2019.
1.5 The case was re-investigated and again untraced report was filed by the police. Finally, on 01.02.2020, the court of Ld. MM-02, Ms. Shilpi Jain accepted the said untraced report after summoning the complainant Sh. Shailesh Kumar and recorded his statement. After acceptance of untraced report by the Hon‟ble Court, the applicant moved a representation before the Disciplinary Authority for re-visiting the punishment as there was no change in the status of the case and to exonerate him. The Disciplinary Authority did not accede to such a request of the applicant vide order dated 05.03.2020 on the ground that there is no provision in Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 to prefer representation after rejection of appeal.
1.6 Aggrieved, the applicant filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
5OA No.1638 of 2020
"a) Call for the record of the case.
b) to quash and set aside impugned order dated 06.11.2019 (Annexure A-1), Memo dated 05.03.2020 (Annexure A-2) and order dated 03.05.2019 (Annexure A-3) vide which applicant's appeal was rejected, representation not accepted and punishment illegally awarded;
c) grant litigation expenses in favour of the applicant and against the respondents; and
d) pass any other order/direction in favour of the applicant and against the respondents which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Per contra, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit opposing the OA. It has been stated that the applicant being the IO failed to get the MLC of the driver as also to record his statement, as he was the main eyewitness of the case, which were mandatory for registering an FIR. He casually registered the FIR merely on the statement of the owner of the truck without calling the eyewitness for registering his statement, which clearly shows a lackadaisical attitude on the part of the applicant. As the court of Ld. M.M. took an adverse view against the applicant, a show cause notice was issued to him. However, the applicant pleaded in his defence that the statement given by the driver before the learned M.M. is a bunch 6 OA No.1638 of 2020 of falsehood being an afterthought and without any basis.
2.1 Reply to the show cause notice, representation of the punishment of censure and appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority were duly considered by the respondents as per rule and law and finding no merit were rejected by passing speaking orders. However, the applicant preferred a representation after rejection of his appeal but the same could not be considered as there is no provision in Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules to consider such a request after rejection of appeal.
2.2 Further, it has been stated that in an identical matter i.e. Sanjay Kumar Gupta vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors. [OA No.1601/2020 decided on 22.10.2020) wherein for not conducting proper investigation by the applicant therein who was also punished with censure, a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal dismissed the OA, relevant portion whereof reads as under:-
"10. The pleas by applicant of contradiction (para 7 supra), are of no help to applicant. A close reading of charge and punishment order makes it amply clear that the both are about one and the same thing: not obtaining CCTV footage despite ample time being available 7 OA No.1638 of 2020 with the applicant who was the IO in this case.
11. The applicant had ample opportunity, including personal hearing, to present and defend his case. This opportunity was availed also. The orders passed by DA as well as AA, are detailed orders.
12. In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal does not find any merit in OA. The same is liable to be dismissed at admission stage itself. The OA is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs."
2.3 In yet another similar matter Shri Mahesh Narain vs. GNCTD & Ors. [OA No.1901/2008 decided on 13.05.2009], a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal dismissed the OA holding as under:-
"7...it was the duty of the applicant to intimate the clear acts to his senior officer(s) and take action as per law but the applicant had kept the matter pending with him, did not call the crime team nor register the case on the day of the theft and eventually registered it after 4 days of the incident on 20.08.2005, which amounts to negligence on the part of the applicant. In the case of Government servants entrusted with duties towards the public, it is important that total efficiency and dedication to duty be maintained and all efforts to promote discipline and efficiency on the part of the administration be allowed to be taken."
2.4 Moreover, the applicant has neither taken any plea not mentioned any instance of violation of principles of natural justice in this case. Since the applicant has been negligent and failed to maintain dedication to duty and to follow prescribed rules and guidelines 8 OA No.1638 of 2020 requiring for registration of FIR in the case in question, punishment awarded to him is in commensurate with the charge levelled against him.
3. Heard Dr. Kanwal Sapra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sameer Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record as also the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. It is an admitted fact that the applicant registered the FIR only on the statement of the Truck Owner. He failed to record the statement of the truck driver, who was the sole eyewitness to the incident. He also did not bother to get a sketch prepared so that he could have investigated the incident thoroughly. He hurriedly submitted an untraced report without complying with the rules and the law.
4.1 It is amply clear from the details brought out above that a minor punishment of „Censure‟ has been imposed upon the applicant due to negligence in performance of his duties. The Appellate Authority while rejecting the appeal has clearly brought out the action/in-action on the part of the applicant in dealing with the case of FIR in question. Even 9 OA No.1638 of 2020 otherwise, a censure is merely a recorded warning whereby the delinquent staff is advised to be more careful in future. The applicant cannot deny the fact that there had been shortcomings on his part while investigating the aforesaid FIR case. I feel that the minor punishment of censure is commensurate with the lapse committed by the applicant while discharging his official duties.
4.2 Having gone through the pleadings, citations relied upon and the arguments put forth by learned counsel for both the parties, it is felt that the instant OA is bereft of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
5. No order as to costs.
(Anand Mathur) Member (A) /na/