Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Subhash Singh vs Commissioner Of Police on 11 July, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 3791/2010 NEW DELHI THIS THE 11th DAY OF JULY, 2011 HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. KHUSHI RAM, MEMBER (A) Subhash Singh S/o Sh. Shri Chand, R/o V.P.O. Kankrola, Distt. Gurgaon. Applicant. (By Advocate Shri Ajesh Luthra) VERSUS 1. Commissioner of Police, PHQ, MSO Building, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. D.C.P. Traffic (Central Range), Banglasahib Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Respondents. ( By Advocate Shri Amit Anand) ORDER (ORAL)
Mr. G. George Paracken:
The applicants grievance is against the Annexure A-1 letter of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic (Central Range), Delhi dated 20.05.2010 rejecting his representation for expunction of the adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the short period from 01.04.2008 to 06.08.2008.
2. Brief facts of the case: The applicant has been working as a Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police since 01.08.1991. In November, 2009, he was informed about the following adverse remarks in his confidential report for the period from 01.04.2008 to 06.08.2008:
Relation with public - Below Average Knowledge of Criminals - Below Average General Remarks - An average ct. making excuse, malinger type ct. Grading - Unsatisfactory
3. The Applicant made the Annexure A-3 representation dated 15.12.2009 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), South Zone, Delhi against the aforesaid adverse remarks. However, vide the impugned Annexure A-1 letter dated 20.05.2010, his representation was rejected and it reads as under:
The representation submitted by Const. (Exe.) Subhash Singh, No. 1688/T against the adverse remarks for the period from 01.04.2008 to 06.08.2008 recorded by Inspr. Shamsher Singh (the then TI/PAP) and categorized as C has been considered by the undersigned. In the representation, the Constable has pleaded that during his posting at PAP Circle his work and conduct was remained excellent and he did his duty as a good Police Officer. Secondly, there was not any complaint against him either from the public or Police Officer and there was no written or oral warning by TI/PAP. The remarks given by the then TI/PAP (now TI/PTH) in his ACR are biased and unjustified. The pleas taken by the Constable are not admitted as he was found careless, negligent during his duty. The record clearly showed that he remained absent on several occasions even on VVIP arrangement duties despite verbally warned many times by the TI/PAP. His behaviour towards his supervisory officer was not well. Several complaints were received from the public regarding demanding money by the Constable and D.D. No. 21 dated 14.12.2007 is self contained in this regard. However, in the interest of natural justice, he was heard in O.R. on 13.05.2010 but he failed to justify the reasons about his absence from duty like VVIP route duty. The behaviour or the Const. is aggressive nature. Therefore, I find no merit in this representation of the Constable, hence the same is hereby rejected.
4. The Applicant has, therefore, challenged the aforesaid Annexure A-1 letter and adverse remarks recorded in his ACR on the ground that there has never been a single complaint of any nature against him so far and he has also never been orally or in writing informed about any such complaints. Further, he has submitted that the aforesaid adverse remarks lack fairness and objectivity as they have been recorded on the basis of personal whims and fancies of the reporting officer. He has also pointed out that the word `below before word average in the adverse remarks has been recorded later and it was done purposely to harm him. He has further submitted that during the period from 01.04.2008 to 06.08.2008, he was deputed at different points with different Zonal Officers on monthly basis and during the said period, his behaviour with the public as well as the police personnel remained very good and there has never been any complaint against him by the senior officers or any communication either by way of recording in Roznamcha or by oral. However, he has submitted that the Traffic Inspector Shri Shamsher Singh has recorded adverse remarks in his ACR which is motivated and out of his ill will towards him.
5. The respondents have considered the aforesaid representation of the applicant and rejected the same stating that, according to the records, he remained absent on several occasions even on VVIP arrangement duties despite verbally warned many times by the TI/PAP. Further, his behaviour towards his supervisory officers was not well and several complaints were received from the public regarding demanding money by the Constable and DD No. 21 dated 14.12.2007 is self explanatory in this regard.
6. In the reply filed by the respondents, they have further stated that the applicant has been found careless/negligent during his duty.
7. We have heard Shri Ajesh Luthra, the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Amit Anand, the learned counsel for the respondents. It is seen that the applicant has been working as a Constable since 01.08.1991. There have been no adverse remarks against him except during the four months i.e. from 01.04.2008 to 06.08.2008. Even though the respondents have stated in the impugned order as well as in the reply that he had been verbally warned many times by the TI/TAP and his behaviour towards his supervisory officers was not well, they have not produced even a single warning or advisory or memo issued to him during his entire career to improve his level of functioning. On the contrary, the allegation is that he had demanded money as evident from DD No. 21 dated 14.12.2007. We have perused the same. In fact, it is seen that it was a report by the applicant himself stating that while he was deputed on Crane No. DLILD 6795 at 07.10 PM on 14.12.2007, a private Car was parked at road towards R/A SPT near Sulabh Shauchalya and he announced from the speaker of the crane to remove the Car but the driver did not do so. Therefore, he towed the vehicle and parked it in front of terminal I.B. However, the owner of the Car revealed his name as Pradeep Jain and threatened him that he knew some of the officers in the Delhi Police and he would make a complaint against him that he was demanding Rs.2000/- from him. Further, it is seen that the aforesaid incident had taken place on 14.12.2007 and it is not understood as to how the same was considered for recording the adverse remarks during the period from 01.04.2008 to 06.08.2008.
8. In our considered opinion, the reporting officer has not been fair to the Applicant. The adverse remarks recorded by him in the ACR of the applicant for the period from 01.04.2008 to 06.08.2008 lacks objectivity as the Applicant had consistently good record; just saying that he was orally warned several times is not sufficient. If the initial few warnings had no salutary effect on any police personnel, the reporting officer should have informed him about his misdeeds in writing. However, it is seen that the reporting officer, who was his supervisor only for a limited period of four months has recorded in ACR without any basis that his relations with public and knowledge of criminal law was below average and recorded the general remarks An average constable making excuse, malinger type constable and graded him as unsatisfactory. The reviewing officer has also without any application of mind agreed with the aforesaid remarks of the reporting officer. In any case, the applicants alleged absence on several occasions even on VVIP arrangement duties has nothing to do with his Relation with Public or knowledge of criminal law in respect of which he was found below average.
9. Consequently, this O.A. is allowed and the Annexure A-1 letter dated 20.05.2010 rejecting the representation of the applicant and Annexure A-2 adverse remarks recorded by the reporting officer are quashed and set aside. The respondents are, therefore, directed to issue necessary orders expunging those remarks within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
( Khushi Ram ) ( G. George Paracken ) Member (A) Member (J) SRD