Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dhani Ram vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 April, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA 4187/2011
New Delhi this the 25th day of April, 2012
Honble Mr. Shailendra Pandey, Member (A)
Honble Mr. A.K.Bhardwaj, Member (J)
Dhani Ram
S/o Shri Baddal Singh
Posted at: PS Preet Vihar, Delhi
R/o E-650, Gali No. 19, East Gokal Puri,
Delhi-94. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Rakesh Kumar )
VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Through the Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police Head Quarters, ITO,
New Delhi.
2. The Joint Commissioner of Police
New Delhi Range, Delhi Police, Headquarters,
ITO, New Delhi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
East District Office of the DCP (East),
Shalimar Park, Near Swarn Cinema,
Bholanath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate Ms. Rashmi Chopra )
O R D E R
Mr. A.K.Bhardwaj, Member (J):
Applicant, HC Dhani Ram, No. 487/E (PIS No. 28821355) along with ASI Shyam Lal, No 185/E (PIS No. 28810425), Constable Shiv Kumar, No. 832/ E ( PIS No. 28971681) and Const. Hawa Singh, No. 1030/E (PIS No. 28930633) were charged for being failed to check and remove the encroachment done by trucks, three wheelers and autos parked in front of cement godown at the edge of village Kotla by almost blocking on the entire stretch through the Kotla Village. The Enquiry Officer who enquired into the aforementioned charges could not find the same fully proved against applicant and other charged officers. However, the disciplinary authority did not agree with the finding of enquiry officer and communicated its disagreement note dated 10.08.2010 to applicant and other charged officer giving them an opportunity to make representation against the same within 15 days from the date of its receipt. Relevant excerpt of disagreement note read as under:-
The findings submitted by Shri R.S.Chauhan, ACP/Preet Vihar, the E.O. of the said DE are not acceptable on the grounds that on receipt of a complaint of Dr. Ashok Chauhan, Ex-Councilor, MCD, and President of Indraprastha Citizen Society, through the office of C.P. Delhi, the SHO/Pandav Nagar was asked to take urgent action on the complaint and ensure that all the encroachments as mentioned in the complaint, were removed. SHO/Pandav Nagar Vide his report No. 2044/R/SHO/Pandav Nagar, dated 25.3.2009, had intimated that all the encroachments under the jurisdiction of P.S. Pandav Nagar as mentioned in the complaint had been removed and there was no traffic problem and encroachment on the road at present. The said report was sent to Joint C.P./NDR, Delhi. To verify this claim of the local police, a photographer was sent to the area to take photographs, who found encroachments by the trucks parked in front of the Cement Godown at the edge of Village Kotla and by three wheelers, Tempos/autos by blocking almost 1/3 of the road on the entire stretch through the Kotla Village. Delinquents, being the Division Officer and the Beat staff, had been given sufficient time to remove the encroachments but they failed to remove these unauthorized encroachments. It has come on record through the deposition of PW-5, that the photographs Ext.PW-5/A&B were taken by PW-5 on 23/24th April 2009. As per deposition of Exhibit PW-5 and as shown in the photographs of Exhibit PW-5/B, it is clear that there was encroachment by the trucks, full of Cement bags, on the road at the edge of village Kotla towards Chand Cinema and by Three Wheelers, Tempos/Autos by blocking of the road on the entire stretch through the Kotla Village. It was a total failure in performing the assigned tasks on the part of the delinquents. In his representation made by applicant in response to disagreement note, he explained that he had joined at PS Pandav Nagar only on 29.08.2008 and was assigned duty of i/c of 5B and Beat No. 9. He explained that as i/c of 5B, he performed court related duty and could visit Beat No. 9 occasionally only on finding the time for the purpose. In said representation, he further stated that on receipt of letter dated 29.05.2009 from ACP (Traffic)-I, he seized about 60/70 TCR and other goods and deposited the same at police station. As per stand taken by applicant in his representation on 23/24.04.2009 when unauthorizedly parked vehicles were photographed, he was required to be present in Court as a witness. He further defended himself by taking the plea that in complaint of Dr. Ashok Chauhan there was no mention about illegal parking of TRS and complaint was only against truck parking at cement godown which was located within jurisdiction of PS Kalyanpuri and not PS Pandav Nagar. Applicant also tried to justify his inaction by taking a stand that the local people of Kotla village including DW 1 to 4 who had been residing in Kotla village never made any complaint of traffic jam by parking of TSR. It is also the stand taken by applicant in his representation that the concerned SHO had discontinued his duty from beat No. 9 w.e.f 20.07.2009. Having considered aforementioned representation of applicant, disciplinary authority passed order dated 22.11.2010, taking the view from the deposition of exhibit PW-5 and photograph exhibit as PW-5/B it was clear that there was encroachment by trucks full of cement bags parked on the road at the edge of village Kotla towards Chand Cinema and by three wheelers, tempos/autos, blocking the road on the entire stretch through Kotla village, imposing the punishment of forfeiture of one year approved service temporarily on applicant and other charged officer. Relevant excerpt of order dated 22.11.2010 passed by disciplinary authority read as under:-
The findings submitted by Sh. R.S. Chauhan, ACP/Preet Vihar, the E.O of the said DE are not acceptable on the grounds that on receipt of a complaint of Dr. Ashok Chauhan, Ex. Councilor, MCD, and President of Indraprastha Citizen Society, through the office of C.P.Delhi, the SHO/Pandav Nagar was asked to take urgent action on the complaint and ensure that all the encroachments as mentioned in the complaint, were removed. SHO/Pandav Nagar vide his report No. 2044/R/SHO/Pandav Nagar, dated 25.3.2009 had intimated that all the encroachments under the jurisdiction of P.S. Pandav Nagar as mentioned in the complaint, had been removed and there was no traffic problem and encroachment on the road at present. The said report was sent to the Joint CP/NDR, Delhi. To verify this claim of the local police, a photographer was sent to the area to take photographs, who found encroachments by the trucks parked in front of the Cement Godown at the edge of Village Kotla and by Three Wheelers, Tempos/Autos by blocking almost 1/3 of the road on the entire stretch through the Kotla Village. Delinquents being the Division Officer and the Beat staff, had been given sufficient time to remove the encroachments but they failed to remove these unauthorized encroachments. It has come on record through the deposition of PW-5, that the photographs Exhibit PW-5/A&B were taken by PW-5 on 23/24th April 2009. As per deposition of Exhibit PW-5 and as shown in the photographs of Exhibit PW-5/B, it is clear that there was encroachment by the trucks full of Cement bags, parked on the road at the edge of village Kotla towards Chand Cinema and by Three Wheelers, Tempos/Autos by blocking of the road on the entire stretch through the Kotla Village. It was a total failure in performing the assigned tasks on the part of the delinquents.
The delinquents were asked to submit their reply/representations of the Disagreement Note within 15 days from the date of its receipt, failing which it will be presumed that they have nothing to say in their defence and the DE will be decided ex-parte. They received the copy of disagreement note as well as findings of the E.O. and submitted their reply/representations. The delinquents have taken the plea that after receiving the complaint of Dr.Ashok Chauhan, Ex. Councilor, MCD and President of Indraprastha Citizen Society, through the office of C.P.Delhi adequate action against the unclaimed vehicles were taken u/s 66 D.P.Act. Besides, a letter dated 29.5.2009 was also sent to ACP/Traffic concerned for taking action against such unauthorized vehicles on the road through the Kotla Village. Besides, there was no mention of unauthorized parking of three wheelers in the complaint. There was complaint of unauthorized parking of trucks in front of Cement Godown, this area does not fall under the jurisdiction of P.S. Pandav Nagar, which falls under P.S. Kalyan Puri.
I have carefully gone through the D.E. file, findings of the E.O., statement of the PWs, DWs, the fresh defence statement of the delinquents and the record available on the DE file. The delinquents were heard on OR on 11.11.2010. They were given opportunity to explain why the encroachments were found on that road, but they did not give any logical explanation. The photographic evidence of encroachment is irrefutable. Finding them guilty of the lapse and in view of their submission and perusal of the record, I, K.C. Dwivedi, Deputy Commissioner of Police, East District award the punishment of forfeiture of one years approved service temporarily each to ASI Shyam Lal No. 185/E ( Now 353/E) (PIS No. 28819425), HC Dhani Ram, No. 487/E (PIS No. 28821355), Const. Shiv Kumar, No. 832/E (PIS No. 28971681) and Const. Hawa Singh No. 1030/E (PIS No. 28930633), entailing reduction in their pay for a period of one year. Applicant preferred an appeal against aforementioned order which was dismissed in terms of order dated 9.03.2011.
2. Assailing aforementioned order of disciplinary authority and appellate authority, applicant has filed present Original Application contending therein:
That the encroachment was not within jurisdiction of PS Pandav Nagar where the applicant was posted.
The applicant was assigned duty of 5B and beat No.9, thus it was not convenient for him to perform his duty in beat No. 9 effectively Applicant seized 60/70 TCR and deposited the same in PS under Section 66 of Delhi Police Act, but as the parking and encroachment of road is on going process it can take place anywhere at any time.
(iv). Disciplinary authority has not assigned any reason for taking a view different from the finding of enquiry officer.
(v). The penalty imposed on applicant is disproportionate.
On 23.05.2005 when the photography was done, applicant had to appear in the Court as witness in the case registered, vide FIR No. 135/2002 PS Pandav Nagar.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent in opposition of aforementioned Original Application referred to record and complaint dated 29.10.2007 made by Dr. Ashok Chauhan to point out that the main road opposite R-Block, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi-91 had been encroached by tempos against Chand Cinema road i.e. turning point opposite Jindal sanitary shop. On the basis of said complaint she submitted that complaint was not only regarding obstruction on Kotla village road but at other places also. Making a reference to contents of para 5 (b) of counter reply, learned counsel for respondent further submitted that it was not correct on the part of applicant to contend that the encroachment on road was within the area of PS Kalyanpuri and it was the duty of beat staff to remove the ongoing process of encroachment in their beat area immediately. She further submitted that there was sufficient material to held the charges against applicant and other charged official proved, but the enquiry officer disregarded the deposition of PW-5 and the photograph exhibited as PW 5A and B.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for parties and perused the record.
4. As far as contention of the applicant regarding encroachment and unauthorized parking being not within area of PS Pandav Nagar is concerned, it is seen that in para B of his OA itself applicant has taken a stand that he had got 60/70 TCR seized and deposited with PS under Section 66 of Delhi Police Act. Had the unauthorized parking and encroachment being not within area of PS Pandav Nagar where applicant was posted, there could be no occasion for him to seize aforementioned vehicle from area of different police station. Thus, the ground of authorized parking being not within area of PS where he was posted is falsified by applicants own stand. Moreover in the complaint made by Dr.Ashok Chauhan there is allegation regarding parking of unauthorized vehicle and encroachment at 3 places viz:.
(i) main road Khicharipur opposite R-block, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi- 91.
(ii) against Chand Cinema road i.e. turning point opposite Jindal sanitary shop and
(iii) on Kotla village road which pass throw Chand Cinema Kalyan Puri.
Relevant excerpt of said complaint of Dr Ashok Chauhan read as under:
Main road Khicharipur opposite R-Block, East Vinod Nagar Delhi-91 & 2nd one is encroached by tempos against Chand Cinema road which is turning point opposite Jindal sanitary shops 3rd on is Kotla village road which pass throw Chand Cinema Kalyan puri where most of heavy of long trucks found standing to block the roads they are supplier of cement. The trucks are working like Godown of retail dealer of shops As can also be gathered from the representation made by applicant against disagreement note, while taking the plea of encroached area being not within the jurisdiction of PS Pandav Nagar, the applicant is under the impression that the encroachment and unauthorized parking was only on the road passing through village Kotla beside cement godown, as according to him, there was no complaint of unauthorized parking of TSR. From the complaint of Dr. Ashok Chauhan, it is apparent that the complaint was regarding unauthorized parking of tempos also. The stand taken by applicant regarding unauthorized parking being not within his jurisdiction is also falsified from the contents of letter dated 27.4.2009 of Joint Commissioner of Police, (New Delhi Range), Police Headquarters addressed to Mr Anand Mohan, DCP East District wherein it is pointed out that six trucks with cement stock standing on the road outside the shops used as godown were found in the area in issue i.e. edge of the village Kotla towards Chand Cinema side. In the said letter it is also highlighted that on the same road after Chand Cinema, Rajasthan cement store had encroached upon the pavement and occupied almost 1/3 of the road in addition by storing Sariya Roddi (aggregate) and Badarpur, while three wheelers tempos/autos blocked almost 1/3 of the road on the entire stretch through the Kotla Village. Said letter of Joint Commissioner of Police read as under:-
Dear Anand, Please refer to your cryptic reply No. 7442/HAX-II/E dated 02.04.2009 in response to the complaint of the Inderprastha Citizen Society sent to your office on 06.11.2007 in which CP had desired that urgent action should be taken.
2. Your reply states that there is no traffic problem and encroachment on the road at present. To verify this claim of the district police, a photographer was sent to the area. He found six trucks with cement stock standing on the road outside the shops acting as godowns. This was the edge of the village Kotla towards Chand Cinema side. Photographs are enclosed.
3. On the same road after Chand Cinema, Rajasthan cement store was encroaching upon the pavement and occupying almost 1/3 of the road in addition, by storing Sariya, Roddi (Aggregate) and Badarpur. Three wheelers tempos/autos blocked almost 1/3 of the road on the entire stretch through the Kotla Village.
4. I am enclosing photographs on the basis of which DE proceedings should be initiated against Division Officer and Beat Constable. SCN for Censure be given to SHO and its out come should be sent to the undersigned. From the record produced before us it is apparent that the exhibited PW-5/B contained the photograph of TRS also. In his appeal preferred, against penalty order applicant pleaded that he himself along with assistance of other Beat staff seized about 60/70 TCR with other article and got deposited the same in police station. Admittedly such action was taken by applicant after 23/24-4-2009 when photographs of unauthorizedly parked vehicle had been taken at the instance of Joint Commissioner of Police. Having taken steps to do the needful after the complaint, applicant cannot take a stand that the wrong of encroachment of road and unauthorized parking of vehicle was not within his area. Could it be so, there would be no occasion for the applicant to remove the encroachment and seized unauthorizedly parked vehicle even after the complaint also.
5. In view of aforementioned, we are not inclined to accept the contention of applicant that unauthorized parking and encroachment was not within the area of PS Pandav Nagar where he was posted. While examining the plea of applicant that he had got 60/70 TCR seized and deposited with police station under Section 66 of Delhi Police Act, we find that he had seized said vehicles only on 29.05.2009 when the encroachment had already been picturised on 23/24.4.2009. Relevant excerpts of said representation placed on record at page 34 to OA read as under.
Therefore I HC used to do of duty of 5B Incharge and Court duty and upon getting time after finishing the said duty I used to Beat No 9 from time to time and used to deal with the complaint given by the people at Beat No. 9 and during course of my duty upon receipt of letter dated 29.05.2009 from ACP Saheb Traffic I HC with help of staff member had seized and deposited about 60/70 TCR and other goods at the police station under S. 66 of Delhi Police Act. The day when PW-5 Shri Bhanu Prasad 50/IYDR had taken photograph and vedio at Kotla Road on 23/4/2009 HC was posted at Court and I was continuously discharging duty of Incharge 5B and the complaint of Dr. Ashok Kumar Chauhan is dated 29.10.2007 where is there is no complaint of illegal parking of TSR. The complaint is about unauthorized parking of truck and cement godown etc. which was filed in the year 2007. The truck and cement godown does not fall within territorial jurisdiction of PS Pandav Nagar and the same fall under territorial Jurisdiction of PS Kalyanpuri. In the complaint of DW5 Dr. Ashok Chauhan nothing is mentioned about TSR which is so mentioned by DW to 4 who are local residents and shopkeepers who are there since last 15-20 years and they have no complaint of traffic Jam and TSR parking etc. and from 20.7.2009 SHO Saheb had removed by name from beat duty. Till dated I, HC is still doing duty of 5B Incharge PS Pandav Nagar. Seizure of vehicle causing encroachment on a particular day after complaint was made by Ex. Municipal Councilor to Commissioner of Police, Delhi on 29.10.2007 would not condone the misconduct committed by applicant and other charged official of allowing encroachment and unauthorized parking for quite long period. Further plea taken by applicant that the encroachment by truck and TSR is on going process and it can happen at any time at any place reflect the misimpression of applicant that it was not his duty to ensure that the such on going process must be checked. A police official who is carrying misimpression about his duty and a belief that it is not for him to ensure that the on going process of unauthorized parking & encroachment on road should be checked cannot be expected to take effective steps to stop such activity. According to an old adage, every society get the police it deserve, as policemen come from the same society and reflect the attitude and behaviour found in society. How respectful is the average citizen with regard to human right of fellow citizen? When it is prevalent misconceived notion in society that they can own and ply a vehicle without being concerned about the parking space available adjacent to boundary of his residential/business premises, the element who flow from such society and join police services are bound to carry with them such impression. If a citizen is expected to not park or leave his vehicle besides the building belonging to some body else, he gather an impression that freedom is infringed. If in order to remove the obstructing parking someone who is often affected person living in the building in vicinity of which vehicles are parked, raise objection it lead to rages and disturbance of peace in the society. If the concerned police official discharge their duty properly and take steps in time, such feud and faction which may also lead to rages entailing fatal consequences can be avoided. Unfortunately the police official like applicant believes that the encroachment by trucks and TRS is ongoing process and it can happen at any point of time at any place. According to applicant, encroachment in road is a routine phenomenon. Such conception of police officials need to be removed. The Police, Government and society each have role to play in improving the law enforcement situation and in developing human right oriented police in the country. A lot can be achieved to change in public perception and to improve the standards of policing if the leadership within the police organization is fully committed to reform. After all every profession has the primary responsibility to discipline its member and maintain a code of ethical behavior by internal mechanism and by peer group. The police are intrinsically disciplined and superior command a lot of power and control over their subordinates. If the situation is to be put to good use, the superior should be aboveboard and transparent in their dealing. It is essential that reform in the organization start from above and clear signals of good behavior are sent down in all ranks. Organisational behavour is largely the outcome of training and continuing education. The emphasis is still more on muscle than the mind. Human right if at all form an insignificant module in the training programme and there is hardly any emphasis on human right in the training of Constables who form 85 percent of the force. A subculture inimical to democratic policing pervades the organization and is perpetrated due to indifference or connivance of seniors. Respect of human right is not rewarded. Reform which can be brought by the police themselves is with respect to the adoption of fair, quick and responsible method of redress of complaint. No government can plead paucity of fund for its inability to protect the life and property of its citizen. Thus if a police official consider it physically impossible for him to take responsibility of a particular quantum of work assigned to him, he may in a discipline manner apprise the superior of such position so that job can be assigned to official to get the same performed effectively and objectively and not in a camouflage manner. We had to express all above for the reason that the applicant a HC in Delhi Police has an impression as reflected by him in para B of his OA in following words:-
(B) That since the alleged encroachment falls within territorial jurisdiction of PS Kalyanpuri, the applicant and other police officers were not supposed to take action against them. However the applicant had got seized 60/72 TSR seized and deposited with the Police Station under section 66 of the Delhi Police Act. But since the encroachment by trucks and TCR is an ongoing process as it can happen at any time and at any place and the applicant being posted on 5B duty in addition to duty as head constable he cannot be made responsible for any encroachment on road by parking of vehicles more so when the place does not fall within jurisdiction of the police station where the applicant was posted. Besides when on 23/24/4/2009 when picturarization/photography was done, it was found that there was encroachment by trucks full of cement bags parked on the road at the edge of village Kotla towards Chand cinema and by three wheelers, tempos/autos blocking of road on the entire stretch through the Kotla village, On 25.03.2009 the SHO, Pandav Nagar gave a report vide No. 2044/R/HO/Pan.Ngr intimating that all the encroachment under the jurisdiction of PS Pandav Nagar as mentioned in the complaint of Dr. Chauhan had been removed and there was no traffic problem and encroachment on the road at the time of preparation of report. Relevant para of disciplinary authoritys order dated 22.11.2010 read as under:-
The findings submitted by Shri R.S.Chauhan, ACP/Preet Vihar, the E.O. of the said DE are not acceptable on the grounds that on receipt of a complaint of Dr. Ashok Chauhan, Ex-Councilor, MCD, and President of Indraprastha Citizen Society, through the office of C.P. Delhi, the SHO/Pandav Nagar was asked to take urgent action on the complaint and ensure that all the encroachments as mentioned in the complaint, were removed. SHO/Pandav Nagar Vide his report No. 2044/R/SHO/Pandav Nagar, dated 25.3.2009, had intimated that all the encroachments under the jurisdiction of P.S. Pandav Nagar as mentioned in the complaint had been removed and there was no traffic problem and encroachment on the road at present. The said report was sent to Joint C.P./NDR, Delhi. To verify this claim of the local police, a photographer was sent to the area to take photographs, who found encroachments by the trucks parked in front of the Cement Godown at the edge of Village Kotla and by three wheelers, Tempos/autos by blocking almost 1/3 of the road on the entire stretch through the Kotla Village. Delinquents, being the Division Officer and the Beat staff, had been given sufficient time to remove the encroachments but they failed to remove these unauthorized encroachments. It has come on record through the deposition of PW-5, that the photographs Ext.PW-5/A&B were taken by PW-5 on 23/24th April 2009. As per deposition of Exhibit PW-5 and as shown in the photographs of Exhibit PW-5/B, it is clear that there was encroachment by the trucks, full of Cement bags, on the road at the edge of village Kotla towards Chand Cinema and by Three Wheelers, Tempos/Autos by blocking of the road on the entire stretch through the Kotla Village. It was a total failure in performing the assigned tasks on the part of the delinquents. Joint Commissioner of Police (New Delhi Range) Delhi Police Head Quarters had to right a letter to Shri Anand Mohan, DCP (East District) informing him that his reply stating that there was no traffic problem and encroachment in their area in question was contrary to factual position. At the cost of repetition letter dated 27.04.2009, placed on record produced by respondent at page 121 (mark by pencil) read as under:-
Dear Anand, Please refer to your cryptic reply No. 7442/HAX-II/E dated 02.04.2009 in response to the complaint of the Inderprastha Citizen Society sent to your office on 06.11.2007 in which CP had desired that urgent action should be taken.
2. Your reply states that there is no traffic problem and encroachment on the road at present. To verify this claim of the district police, a photographer was sent to the area. He found six trucks with cement stock standing on the road outside the shops acting as godowns. This was the edge of the village Kotla towards Chand Cinema side. Photographs are enclosed.
3. On the same road after Chand Cinema, Rajasthan cement store was encroaching upon the pavement and occupying almost 1/3 of the road in addition, by storing Sariya, Roddi (Aggregate) and Badarpur. Three wheelers tempos/autos blocked almost 1/3 of the road on the entire stretch through the Kotla Village.
4. I am enclosing photographs on the basis of which DE proceedings should be initiated against Division Officer and Beat Constable. SCN for Censure be given to SHO and its out come should be sent to the undersigned. We can only express our dismay on the manner in which the SHO and an officer at the level of DCP look at the issue of disturbances created by parking of vehicle. In metros the obstruction on road and street created by parking of vehicle is a problem which concerns the society at large. Police official need to change their way and attitude of looking at such problems. They should not consider these issues as routine process or trivial issue. Instead of themselves accepting the parking of vehicle on road causing encroachment as a routine process, they should make the society to understand that the parking of vehicle on road and in street causing disturbance to the residents besides or around whose residential premises such obstruction is created take away his privilege to live in peace. The person who park the vehicle causing obstruction and go away to stay at a distant place is ignorant with the disturbance, he creates by his said act. It is the person who live in the building/house in vicinity of which the obstruction is caused by vehicle to give answer to passer by through the road or street obstructed by such parking. T he person whose way is obstructed get irritated by obstruction and the resident of the building get further irritated by the question asked to which he has no answer i.e. who is the owner of obstructive vehicle and why he has parked the same on the road or street not touching his premises, where he is reside. Such incident lead to often reported rages leading to commission of fatal offences. Law on the subject, i.e. Delhi Police Act police cast a duty on police officer to regulate and control traffic in streets to prevent obstruction therein and to the best of his ability contravention of any rule regulation or order made under said Act or any other law in force for observance by the public in the streets etc. Section 60 of Delhi Police Act read as under:-.
60. Other duty of a Police Officer:- It shall be the duty of every police officer-
Promptly to serve every summons and obey and execute every warrant or other order lawfully issued to him by the competent authority and to comply with al lawful command of his superior;
To the best of his ability, to obtain intelligence concerning the commission of cognizable offences or designs to commit such offences and to lay such information and to take such other steps consistent with law and with the order of his superior as shall be best calculated to bring offenders to justice and to prevent the commission of cognizable and within his view, of non-cognizable offences;
To prevent to the best of his ability the commission of public nuisances;
To apprehend without unreasonable delay all persons whom he is legally authorized to apprehend and for whose apprehension there is sufficient reason;
To aid any other police officer when called upon by such other police officer or in the case of need in the discharge of the duty of such other police officer, in such ways as would be lawful and reasonable on the part of the officer aided;
To prevent the breach of the public peace;
To afford every assistance within his power to disabled or helpless persons in the streets;
To take charge of intoxicated persons and of lunatics at large, who appear dangerous or incapable or taking care of themselves;
To take prompt measures to procure necessary help for any person under arrest or in custody, who is wounded or sick and whist guarding or conducting any such person to have the due regard to his condition.
To arrange for the proper sustenance and shelter of every person who is under arrest or custody;
In conducting searches, to refrain from needless rudeness and the causing of unnecessary annoyance;
In dealing with women and children, to act with strict regard to decency and with reasonable gentleness;
(m). To use his best endeavours to prevent any loss or damage by fire;
(n) To use his best endeavours to avert any accident or danger to public.
To regular and control traffic in the streets, to prevent obstructions therein and to the best of his ability, to prevent the contravention of any rule, regulation or order made under this Act or any other law in force for observance by the public in or near the streets;
To keep order in the streets and at and within public bathing and washing places, fairs, temples and all other places of public resort and in the neighbourhood of places of public worship;
To regulate resort to public bathing and washing places and all other places of public resort, to prevent overcrowding there and to the nest of his ability, to prevent the contravention of any regulation or order lawfully made for observance by the public at such place; and To discharge such other duties as are imposed upon him by any law for the time being in force. However, applicant is under the impression that his duty was only to seize unclaimed property under Section 66 of the Delhi Police Act. Said provision read as under-
66. Public to take charge of unclaimed property- (1) It shall be the duty of every police officer to take temporary charge-
(a) of all unclaimed property found by, or made over to him; and
(b) of all property found lying in any place street, if the owner or person in charge of such property, on being directed to remove the same, refuses or fails to do so.
(2) The police officer taking charge of the property under sub-section (1) shall furnish an inventory thereof to the Commissioner of Police. Being in charge of a beat, applicant was expected to conscious of his duty under aforementioned provisions of Delhi Police Act, i.e., Section 60 of the Delhi Police Act. No police official can be expected to say that violation of provision of Delhi Police Act is routine process. Thus we are unable to accept the contention of the applicant that as he had seized 60/70 TCR in May, 2009 and the obstruction on road by trucks/TRS are ongoing process as a ground to interfere with the punishment imposed upon him. Rather his stand strengthened the allegation of not removing the unauthorized encroachment leveled against him. Dual duty assigned to applicant cannot be accepted as a justification by applicant for not performing his duty effectively and objectively. It is not so that the unauthorized parking on the road is a event which take place only on a particular day as it is the stand of the applicant himself that the same is on going process. Thus he should have discharged his duty of taking regular steps to ensure that the ongoing process of encroachment could be discontinued. It is well known that the punishment is one of the oldest methods of controlling the wrong and wrong doing. The deterrent and retributive form of poena could be preventive steps to discourage the encroaching vehicle in obstructing the road. Instead of taking such steps applicant himself formed a view that unauthorized parking of vehicle obstructing the road is a routine process. The presence of applicant in court on the day of photography is also no explanation for the misconduct committed by him in allowing obstruction on road by unauthorized parking of vehicle in routine. Applicant is not correct in submitting that the disciplinary authority has not given any reason for not accepting the finding of enquiry officer. As can be seen from the order of disciplinary authority, sufficient reasons are recorded by said authority for taking a view different from the view taken by enquiry officer. PW-5 Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, No.D-1026, Staff Officer, O/O Jt. CP/NDR deposed that in April 2009 in compliance of orders of Jt. CP/NDR he along with Ct. Harminder went for independent enquiry in the complaint of President of Inderaprastha Citizens Society Hg. Dr. Ashok Chauhan on 23.4.2009 and while visiting Kotla road in the area of PS Pandav Nagar and Kalyan Puri found tempos and trucks unauthorizedly parked there and also saw 6 trucks being parked on both side of Kotla road near Chand Cinema just at the beginning of village kotla, in which cement bags were loaded. He had done videography of the same. For easy reference the statement of PW5 is extracted hereinbelow:-
PW 5: Inspr Bhanu Pratap Singh No.D-1026 Staff Officer, Office of JT CP/NDR.
In April 2009, in compliance of orders of Jt.CP/NDR, he alongwith Ct. Harminder (Also posted in his office), went for the independent enquiry complaint of the present of Indraprastha Citizens Society, Hr. Ashok Chauhan. On 23/24 April 2009, he visited Kotla Road in the area of PS Pandav Nagar and Kalyan Puri and found tempos and Truks unauthorisedly parked there and also saw 6 trucks being parked on both side on Kotla Road near Chand Cinema just at the beginning of Village Kotla, in which cement bags were loaded. He had done videography of the same. In the said village there were parked many TSRs on the road side and he made video of that also. He had submitted a report to Jt.CP/NDR and after loading the video in computer, still photos were also prepared, which have been seen by him in this DE file and the same stand marked as Ext PW-5/A and 5/B. Defaulter cross examined the PW jointly and the following responses to their questions came:
On the same place where the TSRs were parked, no traffic jam was seen by the PW. No truck loaded with Iron bars or cement was also seen there. The PA has done survey of encroachment from Rajasthan Cement Kotla Road, Chand Cinema upto Pandav Nagar Police Station on Kotla Road. In the complaint ( of Indraprastha Citizens Society), there finds mention of Truck/Tempos with cement bags and iron bars and nothing about the jam due to TSRs. As was deposed by PW-5 in disciplinary enquiry still photographs of vehicle parked obstructing on road was also taken. Such photographs were also exhibited as PW-5/B. On the basis of aforementioned statement of PW-5 and photography on road, the disciplinary authority differed with the finding of enquiry officer. Relevant excerpts of order of disciplinary authority read as under:
It has come on record through the deposition of PW-5, that the photographs Exhibit PW-5/A&B were taken by PW-5 on 23/24th April 2009. As per deposition of Exhibit PW-5 and as shown in the photographs of Exhibit PW-5/B, it is clear that there was encroachment by the trucks full of Cement bags, parked on the road at the edge of village Kotla towards Chand Cinema and by three wheelers, tempos/autos by blocking of the road on the entire stretch through the Kotla village. It was a total failure in performing the assigned tasks on the part of the delinquents. Thus the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing for applicant that the order of disciplinary authority does not contain any reason for taking a view different from the enquiry officer is misconceived and is rejected.
6. As far as the plea of the applicant regarding quantum of punishment is concerned, as has been noted hereinabove the non removal of obstructive vehicle on road and the street is a serious issue concerning public at large. The misconduct of applicant in failure to do his duty to remove the encroachment done by trucks, three wheeler, tempos and autos parked on road unauthorizedly, warranted a penalty being imposed on him.
7. In view of aforementioned discussion and finding, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of punishment. OA is accordingly dismissed. No cost.
( A.K.Bhardwaj ) (Shailendra Pandey) Member (J) Member (A) sk