Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Munshi Ram vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 22 November, 2008
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench OA No. 404/2008 MA No. 381/2008 New Delhi this the 22nd day of November, 2008 Honble Mr.L.K.Joshi, Vice-Chairman (A) Honble Mrs.Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Munshi Ram H.C.No.21/NDD, Security Picket, New Delhi. Applicant. (By Advocate: Shri H.K.Shekhar) V e r s u s- 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, through its Secretary, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range, Delhi. 3. The Addl. D.C.P. Police Headquarters, New Delhi. ...Respondents. (By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra) ORDER Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman(A):
The Applicant, Head Constable in Delhi Police at the relevant period, was awarded punishment of forfeiture of two years service permanently by the disciplinary authority following departmental proceedings against him. The Applicant preferred statutory appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority, which did not find favour with the appellate authority and the appeal was rejected by his order dated 24.07.2007. The order of the appellate authority has been assailed in this OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. The circumstances leading to the disciplinary proceedings are contained in the summary of allegations, which is reproduced below:
It is alleged that you, HC Munshi Ram No. 21/ND (PIS No. 28824471), while posted at P.S. Tilak Marg was entrusted a PCR call received at P.S. Tilak Marg vide D.D. No. 24-A, dated 25/26.6.05. You attended the above-mentioned PCR call and brought two young Kashmiri boys namely (i) Bhupinder Singh Manhaas s/o Shri Maya Ram Manhaas r/o 224-F, Hari Nagar, Bihari Colony, Jammu and (ii) Imtiaz Ahmed s/o Abdul Salaam Dar r/o Badsa Nagar, Srinagar, Kashmir to P.S. Tilak Marg. They were riding on a motorcycle without number plate opposite National Stadium. You, HC Munshi Ram, failed to prosecute the rider, who was driving the motorcycle, under appropriate section of law and failed to seize the motorcycle, which was without registration papers. Besides this, you did not inform SHO and Addl. SHO Tilak Marg about this deliberately and knowingly and developed intimacy with the above-mentioned Kashmiri boys and allowed them to stay in your room in the premises of P.S. Tilak Marg. On the intervening night of 27/28.6.05, both the Kashmiri boys were found sleeping in your room. You further failed to flash wireless message to PCR and other SSsP of India to find out the involvement of the said motorcycle and Kashmiri boys, if any, and also did not sent any letter to NCRB.
On 27.6.05, the same motorcycle was again noticed without number plate opposite V.P. House and a PCR call was received at P.S. Tughlak Road vide D.D. No. 8-A. ASI Ramji Lal from P.S. Tughlak Road reached the spot and seized the motorcycle. The rider was prosecuted u/s 39/192, 3/181 and 129, 50/177 M.V. Act by the ASI.
The above act on your part amounts to gross misconduct, negligence, dereliction and carelessness in the discharge of your official duties.
3. The enquiry officer, after examining the witnesses for the prosecution framed the charge against the Applicant, which is the same as the summary of allegations. The Applicant submitted a written statement of defence on 31.01.2007, which is placed at Annex D, from pages 16 to 18 of the paper book. The disciplinary authority inflicted the above mentioned punishment on the Applicant by his order dated 6.10.2006. A copy of the appeal against the aforesaid order, addressed to the Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range is placed at page 19 of the paper book. The appeal was rejected.
4. Copy of the report of the enquiry officer and the order of the disciplinary authority have not been annexed with the OA by the Applicant.
5. The only argument pressed before us by the learned counsel for the Applicant was that the procedure followed in the disciplinary proceeding was contrary to the Delhi Police Rules. In spite of our probing, he did not clarify as to which Rules under the Delhi Police Act, 1978 had been violated. The learned counsel has not urged any other contention before us in this regard.
6. Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel defending the Respondents has placed before us the record of the disciplinary proceedings, so that the gap in information in the OA could be filled up. Our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel to the written statement of defence of the Applicant, submitted to the enquiry officer. The Applicant has alleged malafides against the then Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Mr. Niranjan Singh, who appeared before the enquiry officer as a witness for the prosecution. It is alleged that the Applicant had complained against Mr.Niranjan Singh to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Commission and the matter is sub judice before the Special Court at Tis Hazari. It is alleged that the testimony of the ACP (PW-5 Mr.Niranjan Singh) was biased and he was able to influence other witnesses also to depose against him. The learned counsel for the Respondents would contend that the Applicant has not confronted any witness, including PW-5, ACP Niranjan Singh during cross-examination regarding this aspect. It is clear from the record, in spite of the Applicants protestation to the contrary, that he was given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses but he examined only PW-5, i.e. the ACP. He did not confront even him about the latters bias against him due to facts adverted to above.
7. The learned counsel has also pointed to the apparent contradictions in the statement of defence of the Applicant. In paragraph 3 of the statement it has been stated that:
The applicant verified their credentials and it was established that one of them Imtiaz Ahmed was the son of the Asstt. Registrar of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and the another Bhupender Singh was a brother of reputed contractor. There was nothing suspicious against both of them. So I did not taken any immediate action against them and filed the B.D. entry and released both of them after proper verification. Immediately in the next paragraph it has been stated thus by the Applicant:
That next day both these boys against came to me as they had no shelter in Delhi. The learned counsel would contend that it would not pass muster that sons of fairly influential persons would be shelterless in Delhi.
8. It has further been submitted that the Applicant had appeared before the disciplinary authority in the OR on 29.09.2006, where he admitted the charge against him and pleaded for leniency. The learned counsel has taken serious exception to the fact that the Applicant has concealed this fact by not annexing a copy of the order of the disciplinary authority.
9. The learned counsel for the Applicant did not answer the contentions raised by the Respondents learned counsel.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record placed before us. We have also minutely gone through the original file of the disciplinary proceedings, which was necessary in view of the scanty information given by the Applicant. We have also carefully perused the pleadings in the OA so that no argument on the Applicants behalf is missed in view of the reticence of the learned counsel for the Applicant.
11. The grounds for relief with legal provisions, as stated in the OA, are reproduced below:
A. That the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority acted untra-vires of their power and both these authorities were not empowered to act in such a manner as per provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.
B. That the ordered punishment of applicant by the authorities were at excessive side and thus both the authorities had violated the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.
C. Any enquiry officer had knowingly and deliberately denied the right of cross examine the witnesses and thus there is specific violation of provisions of Evidence Act and Rules relating to conduction of enquiry.
D. That the then ACP Sh. Niranjan Singh can not be complained because few complaints filed by the applicant against him is pending before Commission of SC/ST and the matter is sub judice there and thereby all the witnesses who deposed before the enquiry officer i.e. either Shri Niranjan Singh or on his instance are interested and bias persons.
E. That the respondents found nothing type of evidence against Bhupinder Singh Minhas and Imitiaz Ahmed and they are not the persons of bad credentials so the punishment awarded to the applicant is unwarranted and unjust in the present scenario.
12. In so far as grounds A and B are concerned, these have remained obscure and we have not been able to elicit any clarification from the learned counsel for the Applicant in this regard. The ground C about the enquiry officer not giving the Applicant any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses is seen to be incorrect from the records of the disciplinary proceedings. It is recorded in the statements of the prosecution witnesses 1 to 4 that the Applicant did not cross-examine them. The Applicant has also signed the sheets on which the statements have been recorded as also the remark that he did not cross-examine the witnesses. He has examined PW-5, as mentioned in the previous paragraph.
13. Ground D is regarding the credibility of ACP Niranjan Singh because of the Applicants complaint against him. As we have noted earlier, the Applicant has cross-examined ACP Niranjan Singh, but has not put any question to him regarding this aspect. The enquiry officer has dealt with this thus:
The defaulter has termed it a result of inimical terms between him and ACP/ Tilak Marg and only after proper verification about those two he relieved them do not appear tenable as he even failed to initiate action under provision of M.V. Act. If he had taken action under the provisions of M.V. Act the boys had not dared to go V.P. House and spotted by the police there. From the inaction of defaulter his guilt is established irrespective of suing the PW-5 in the Court of law. He is guilty of blunder in the prevalent atmosphere of terrorism.
14. The fact that nothing incriminating was found against the Kashmiri youth during their interrogation later on can not be a mitigating factor for the Applicant.
15. On the basis of the above analysis, we find no merit in the OA, which is accordingly dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.
(Meera Chhibber) (L.K.Joshi) Member (J) Vice Chairman(A) /dkm/