Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Satish Kumar vs Gnctd on 16 April, 2025
1
OA No.842/2023
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No. 842/2023
Order Reserved on :24.02.2025
Order pronounced on :16.04.2025
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Satish Kumar
S/o Shri Kesho Ram
R/o, E-4/40, Ground Floor
Sector-7, Rohini
Delhi-110 085. ...Applicant
(By Advocate:Mr. Rahul Singh)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through
Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police, PHQ, IP Estate
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Joint Commissioner of Police
South East District
New Delhi - 110 001.
3. Deputy Commissioner of Police
South East District
New Delhi - 110 076. ...Respondents
(By Advocate:Mr.Ajay Sharma for Mr. Raj Pal Singh)
2
OA No.842/2023
ORDER
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):-
"(1) Allow the present Original Application;
(ii) Set aside the Impugned Orders dated 24.11.2021 & 06.06.2022 passed by the Respondents in lieu of which the penalty of Censure had been awarded to the Applicant;
(iii) Direct the Respondents to pay the costs of litigation to the Applicant: AND/OR
(iv) Grant any other relief(s) as may be deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the interests of justice and equity."
2. The facts, in brief, are that the applicant, namely, Shri Satish Kumar currently working as Inspector, has been serving in Delhi Police for last 25 years. He has been honoured with numerous laurels over his service tenure, including the Union Home Minister's Medal for Excellence in Investigation in 2020 and the highly coveted Utkrisht Seva Medal in 2020.The applicant's excellent investigation skills have been widely acclaimed. His role 3 OA No.842/2023 has also been extensively covered in an Award-Winning Documentary on the famous Burari Death Case in 'The House of Secrets: Burari Deaths' that was showcased recently on Netflix and extensively viewed throughout the country and abroad. It is submitted that the applicant has also received numerous cash rewards along with Recommendation Rolls and Appreciation Letters, from Senior Officials of Delhi Police from time to time.
3. A complaint dated 24.02.2021 was submitted by one Ms. Shagufta Naz (hereinafter referred to as the "Complainant") before the DCP, South East Delhi, against one 'Aamir Malik' (hereinafter referred to as the "Accused"). In the aforesaid complaint, the Complainant therein had alleged that she had intimate relations with the Accused, which were allegedly secured by the accused therein, on the false pretext of marriage, between the Complainant and the Accused. A copy of the said complaint was received at the office of the DCP, South East District Delhi (Respondent No.2) and was assigned the Diary No. 462 on 24.02.2021.On the same date i.e., 24.02.2021, the complainant went to P.S. Jamia Nagar, Delhi and met SI Liaqat Ali and was pleased to inform him that she had filed a complaint against the 4 OA No.842/2023 accused, at the office of the DCP/ South East District Delhi. Accordingly, SI Liaqat Ali requested the complainant to make a statement along with submitting a copy of the complaint that had been preferred by the complainant before the DCP/South East District Delhi so that prompt action could be taken based on the aforesaid Complaint. The complainant, however, chose not to submit a copy of the same and further refused to make any statement at the P.S. Jamia Nagar against the accused concerning her grievances.
4. It is further submitted that on 25.02.2021, after filing of the aforesaid complaint with the DCP/South East District Delhi, the complainant, on the instructions of the applicant was called by the authorities at the P.S. Jamia Nagar and instructed to meet W/SI Surekha to inform about her grievances against the accused. However, upon meeting the W/SI Surekha, the complainant refused to provide any information about her alleged grievances and implored W/SI Surekha to not take any action, for at least 4-5 days, by tendering a written request and further submitted that she would contact W/SI Surekha herself, if she 5 OA No.842/2023 wished to proceed against the accused. On the same day, W/SI Surekha, at her own behest, duly called a counsellor to counsel the complainant, as mandated under the law. However, despite all requests made by the police authorities, no statement or complaint was made by the complainant before W/SI Surekha. It is reiterated, that in the absence of any statement or complaint, at the behest of the complainant, no FIR could be registered. On 02.03.2021, the complainant, at the instructions of the applicant, was called once again by W/SI Surekha at PS Jamia Nagar to inquire from the complainant, whether she was ready to register her complaint. In response to the aforesaid inquiry, the complainant requested W/SI Surekha, yet again, to refrain from taking any action against the accused for the next 4-5 days, because the complainant was undertaking talks for settlement with the accused and his family members. Accordingly, the complainant, employing yet another written request, implored W/SI Surekha to keep the matter pending and not take any action against the accused.
5. It is stated that on 10.03.2021, at the directions of the applicant, W/SI Surekha, after making numerous requests to the 6 OA No.842/2023 complainant, persuaded her to appear at P.S. Jamia Nagar and make a statement against the accused. Immediately on the statement of the complainant, an FIR bearing Case No. 88/2021 was promptly registered at P.S. Jamia Nagar U/s 376/313/354/506 IPC & U/s 8 POCSO Act, on the same day. On 15.03.2021, pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the Police Authorities at P.S. Jamia Nagar, under the instructions of the applicant, promptly and expeditiously arrested the accused Aamir Malik. The complaint dated 24.02.2021, which was initially submitted by the complainant before the office of the DCP South East District, Delhi was received at P.S. Jamia Nagar belatedly on 18.03.2021. However, it is noteworthy to mention, that prior to receiving the aforesaid complaint from the office of the DCP South-East District, Delhi, an FIR on the said issue had already been duly & promptly registered at P.S. Jamia Nagar, Delhi on 10.03.2021.
6. On 06.04.2021,at the hearing of the bail application of the accused before the Court of the Ld. ASJ-01, Saket Court Shri Gaurav Rao, the Ld. Judge, while granting bail to the accused, was pleased to pass his orders inter alia observing that the IO's 7 OA No.842/2023 conduct in not registering the FIR (on the complainant's case) in a prompt manner and the applicant's approach in not overseeing the conduct of his junior officers was "not upto mark" and that the applicant purportedly was not taking any interest in the investigations. The Ld. Judge further directed that a copy of the aforesaid orders be sent to the Commissioner of Police, for his information and necessary actions.
That the Ld. ASJ-01, Saket Court- Shri Gaurav Rao, vide his orders dated 24.09.2021, while passing numerous unwarranted observations against the applicant and his junior officers, directed the Commissioner of Police, to submit a detailed report, concerning the actions of the applicant and his junior officers, on the purported delay of the registration of the FIR in the case of the complainant and also regarding the non-compliance of directions issued by the Court vide its orders dated 06.04.2021.
A Reply dated 29.09.2021 was submitted by the DCP/South East District Delhi, in compliance with the Orders dated 24.09.2021 passed by the Ld. ASJ-01. Saket Court. Vide the aforesaid reply the DCP/South East District Delhi-Respondent No.2, on the aspect of the delay in the registration of the FIR 8 OA No.842/2023 No.88/2021 at the behest of the complainant submitted that enquiry against the actions of the applicant was conducted wherein it was found that there was no foul play on the part of the applicant and the I.O., in lieu of the fact that the complainant had made her statement only on 10.03.2021 and thereafter, the aforesaid FIR was registered promptly on the same day. The aforesaid reply succinctly concluded that there was no foul play on the part of the applicant, concerning the aforesaid FIR. The Ld. ASJ-01, Saket Court, Shri Gaurav Rao, vide his orders dated 30.09.2021, was pleased to negate the aforesaid reply dated 29.09.2021 which was submitted by the DCP/South East District Delhi, whereby it had been determined that no foul play was attributable to the applicant, for the delay in registering the FIR of the complainant herein. The Ld. ASJ-01, Saket Court, Shri Gaurav Rao thereafter directed the Office of the Police Commissioner, Delhi to submit an Action Taken Report with respect to the Court's observations vide its order dated 30.09.2021.
7. It is submitted that a Show Cause Notice dated 12.10.2021, for the imposition of a penalty of censure, was issued to the 9 OA No.842/2023 applicant under the provisions of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, on the grounds of the applicant's purported negligent conduct of sitting over the complaint of the complainant and failing to register an FIR promptly on the aforesaid complaint. It is argued that the aforesaid Show Cause Notice seeking to impose the penalty of censure is in complete contradiction with the reply dated 29.09.2021 submitted by the same authority whereby the applicant was provided a clean chit and absolved from any liability whatsoever for the registration of the aforesaid complaint/FIR. The DCP South East District Delhi was further pleased to call upon the applicant, to submit his reply within a period of 15 days to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice. A reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 12.10.2021, was submitted by the applicant on 08.11.2021. Vide the aforesaid reply preferred by the applicant, it was inter alia submitted that there was no delay or lapse on the part of the applicant with respect to the registration of the FIR on the complaint submitted by the complainant. It was reiterated that an FIR with respect to the complaint could not be registered promptly solely because the complainant herself wilfully chose not to prefer any complaint nor 10 OA No.842/2023 make any statement at the P.S. Jamia Nagar, despite numerous requests by the authorities. It was further submitted that the complainant had also raised no grievance as against the applicant, the I.O. or any other official at the P.S. Jamia Nagar, Delhi. Subsequently, on 08.11.2021,during the bail hearing, concerning another FIR bearing FIR No.100 of 2021, the Ld. ASJ, 01, Saket Court, Shri Gaurav Rao, passed various unwarranted remarks against the applicant and his superior officers, in his observations by stating that the applicant and other police officials had played fraud upon the Hon'ble Court and had abused the powers and authority that was vested in them. Accordingly, the Ld. ASJ-01 passed directions summoning the Joint Commissioner of Police, before the Hon'ble Court on the next date of hearing. On 17.11.2021, concerning the proceedings which ensued to FIR No.100 of 2021, the Ld. ASJ-01, Saket Court passed further unwarranted remarks by passing the following observations:-
"but it is a big slap on the Delhi Police Logo of "Shanti Seva Nyay", "Nyay" has been taken for a ride by them, twisted and warped as per their whims and fancies."11 OA No.842/2023
8. It is submitted that with respect to FIR No.100 of 2021, the Ld. ASJ-01 Saket Court vide his orders dated 24.11.2021 was pleased to yet again pass numerous unwarranted remarks against the applicant. In pursuance to the same, the Ld. ASJ-01, Saket Courts directed action to be taken against the applicant under Sections 166,166A (d), 167,191,193,195,201,218 and 219 IPC, 1860. The aforesaid clearly reflects the deep bias that the Ld. ASJ-01, Saket Courts, bore against the applicant. Simultaneously, the punishment of censure was awarded to the applicant by the Respondent No.3-DCP/Southeast District, Delhi, in her capacity as the adjudicatory authority vide order dated 24.11.2021, concerning FIR No. 88/2021.It is submitted that the aforesaid orders were bad in law since the same were non-speaking orders and were passed without considering the merits of the case. In this regard, it is stated that the DCP/South East Distt, before the issuance of the aforesaid orders, during her enquiry report dated 29.09.2021 which had been submitted before the court, had been pleased to give a clean chit to the applicant, by categorically stating that there was no foul play on the part of the applicant towards the purported delay in the registration of the FIR in the 12 OA No.842/2023 complainant's case and that an FIR was promptly registered upon the submission of the complainant's statement. The orders dated 24.11.2021 further mentioned that an appeal against the said orders could be preferred before the Appellate Authority, namely, the Joint Commissioner of Police, Southern Range, Delhi within 30 days from the receipt of the said orders. On 25.11.2021, the applicant was constrained to prefer an application bearing CRL. M.C.3013/2021 and CRL. M.A. 18877-781 2021 under Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973 to set aside the orders dated 24.11.2021 passed by the Ld. ASJ-01. Saket Courts, with respect to FIR No.100 of 2021 and expunge the remarks passed by the Ld. ASJ- 01, Saket Courts vide his Orders dated 08.11.2021, 17.08.2021 and 24.11.2021.
9. It is stated that an appeal dated 25.12.2021 was filed by the applicant under Rule 23 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, before the Joint Commissioner of Police, Southern Range, New Delhi (Respondent No.2) as against the punishment of censure awarded by the DCP/South - East Distt vide her orders dated 24.11.2021, with respect to FIR No. 88/2021.The impugned order dated 06.06.2022 was passed by the Joint 13 OA No.842/2023 Commissioner of Police, Southern Range, New Delhi, in her capacity as the Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal filed by the applicant was rejected and the penalty of censure was confirmed. The Joint Commissioner of Police, Southern Range, New Delhi's orders dismissing the appeal preferred by the applicant, have been passed by yet again, not considering the merits of the matter and dismissing the appeal in a lackadaisical manner. The aforesaid impugned orders are bad in law inasmuch as the same have interalia been passed on the basis of factual inconsistencies and without application of mind and seek to replicate the orders passed by the DCP/South East Delhi. The Joint Commissioner of Police in addition to dismissing the Appeal filed by the applicant, has also proceeded based on factual inconsistencies by incorrectly stating that the complaint before the PS Jamia Nagar, Delhi was filed on 24.02.2021, without appreciating that, the complaint dated 24.02.2021 was filed by the complainant before the DCP/South East Delhi, on the aforesaid date and that a copy of the same reached P.S. Jamia Nagar, Delhi belatedly on 18.03.2021, well after an FIR had been registered at PS Jamia Nagar.
14OA No.842/2023
10. It is stated that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide its Orders dated 14.02.2023, in CRL.M.C.3013/2021 in CRL.M.A. 18877-78/2021 was pleased to set aside the orders dated 24.11.2021 and 17.11.2021 against the applicant, insofar as an FIR was directed to be registered against the applicant. Furthermore, the remarks which were passed by the Ld. ASJ-01, Saket Court vide his Orders dated 08.11.2021 and 17.11.2021 were also expunged by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observing that "Judicial Strictures be passed with utmost circumspection, as criticism may have a devastating effect on the professional career of the officer."
11. Applicant has argued that the impugned orders are bad in law inasmuch as the same have inter-alia been passed on the basis of factual inconsistencies and without application of mind and seeks to replicate the orders passed by the DCP/South East Delhi in a pedestrian manner. The Joint Commissioner of Police in addition to lackadaisically dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant, has also proceeded on the basis of factual inconsistencies by incorrectly stating that the complaint before the P.S. Jamia Nagar, Delhi was filed on 24.02.2021, without 15 OA No.842/2023 appreciating that on the contrary, the complaint dated 24.02.2021 was rather filed by the complainant before the DCP/South East Delhi on the aforesaid date and that a copy of the same reached P.S. Jamia Nagar, belatedly on 18.03.2021 well after an FIR had been registered at P.S. Jamia Nagar, with respect to the complainant's case.
12. On issuance of notice, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit.
13. In the counter affidavit, respondents have not denied the facts, as submitted by the applicant. However, they have said that the facts of the case are that a Show Cause Notice was issued to Inspr. Satish, No D-1/1262 PIS No 16960224, SHO/PS Jamia Nagar, ASI Liyakat Ali, No 3519-D and ASI Devender No100/SE alleging gross negligence for which they deserved departmental action under the provision of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. It is stated that on perusal of court order dated 30.09.2021, passed by the Hon'ble Court of Sh Gaurava Rao, ASJ-01, SED, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi in case FIR No 29/2016 U/s 363/376/372/33 IPC & 4 POCSO Act, P.S. Jamia Nagar, it has been found that in report regarding 16 OA No.842/2023 observations dated 06.04.2021 in FIR no 88/2021, P.S. Jamia Nagar, it has been submitted by DCP/SED that complaint dated 24.02.2021 was received only on 18.03.2021, whereas it is evident from reply of IO that the complaint of the victim/ prosecutrix was indeed received on 24.02.2021 itself but it was kept pending on the request of the Complainant/victim. Despite having received a complaint of rape, penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act, the SHO kept sitting over it on purported request of the victim/complainant. Once a cognizable offence was brought to the notice of the SHO concerned by the complainant, there was absolutely no occasion for the SHO not to register the FIR.
14. It is stated that the complainant made a written complaint in the office of the DCP/SED on 24.02.2021 and also visited P.S. Jamia Nagar on the same day and met to ASI Liyakat Ali and SHO/P.S. Jamia Nagar with the acknowledgement copy of the complaint given by her in DCP office. Thereafter she met with W/SI Surekha of PS Jamia Nagar on 25.02.2021, 02.03.2021 & on 10.03.2021. On 25.02.2021 and 02.03.2021 she gave in writing to keep her matter pending for 4-5 days. Meanwhile, 17 OA No.842/2023 family members of alleged Aamir offered money and pressurized the complainant/prosecutrix to settle the matter. She again approached IO, SI Surekha and SI Devender for registration of the case. The case should have been registered on the said complaint on the same day. However, local police had failed to register the FIR in time. Besides, the matter was also kept pending with HAC Branch of South-East District.
15. It is further submitted that the applicant had submitted his written reply to the show cause notice which was found not convincing as the same was vague, therefore, the disciplinary authority has no reason to take any leniency in the matter and thus proposal in the Show Cause Notice was confirmed and concluded by passing the impugned punishment order of censure dated 24.11.2021. The applicant filed his appeal which has also been considered on its merits and rejected by the appellate authority on 06.06.2022.
16. The matter was heard at length on 29.01.2025 and we passed the following order :-
"By way of the present OA, the applicant has challenged the punishment of censure imposed upon him. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, at the outset, that the show cause 18 OA No.842/2023 notice for censure, which constitutes a minor penalty, was issued as a direct consequence of the order passed by the Learned ASJ on 05.10.2021 stated "If the report of the DCP concerned is to be accepted than the registration of FIR is to be left to be whims/fancies/mercy of the SHO concerned/police brass irrespective of the seriousness of the allegations. Moreover the DCP concerned has stated that no foul play has been found on the part of the SHO/IO concerned and the observations of the court as above have been completely neglected. It appears that the office, of Commissioner of Police has failed to look into the seriousness of the matter and violation of various laws and the guidelines itself laid down by the office of Commissioner of police as regards registration of FIR. Copy of complaint dated 24.02.2021 with receiving of the office of DCP, statement dated 25.02.2021 & 02.03.2021, reply of IO dated 02.04.2021 and copy of order dated 06.04.2021 be sent to the Commissioner of Police and detailed report/Action Taken Report in terms of court's observations be called within two weeks from today".
2. He submits that he has provided a detailed, date-wise account demonstrating how the case was brought before the applicant, who was then serving as SHO, PS Jamia Nagar. He contends that the proceedings were initiated solely due to the order passed by the Learned ASJ and to satisfy the trial court, thereby making the applicant a scapegoat. He argues that the show cause notice was issued arbitrarily, and the subsequent confirmation of the penalty of censure was unwarranted.
3. The counsel places strong reliance on the report dated 29.09.2021 stated "Secondly, regarding non compliance of the directions of the order in case FIR No. 38/2021, u/s 376/313/354/506 IPC & 6 POCSO Act, PS Jamia Nagar, it is submitted that the compliance of the directions of said order has been made as an enquiry was assigned to ACP/PG Cell to fix the responsibility for delay in registration of the FIR. The enquiry has since been concluded and no foul play has been found on the part of SHO/IO, as the complainant had 19 OA No.842/2023 given her statement only on March 10, 2021 and the case was registered on the same day. However, the complaint dated February 24, 2021, given by the complainant at single window of South-East District was received at the Police Station on March 18, 2021, due to the heavy law and order arrangement in the District.", signed by the then DCP, SED, South District, which had given a clean chit to the applicant concerning the delay in the registration of the said FIR. He submits that once the DCP had submitted this report on 29.09.2021, there was no occasion for him to change his stance through a subsequent letter dated 24.11.2021, on the basis of which the impugned order of censure was passed.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to present his arguments.
5. List the matter on 07.02.2025 as Part Heard."
17. Thereafter again on 07.02.2025, the following order was passed :-
"Today, learned counsel for the respondents appears and seeks some more time. He submitted that he had shared the order passed by us on 29.01.2025 with the department to offer their comments, however, no comments have been received till date. As such, he requests that one week's time may be granted to present his arguments.
Looking into the facts and also our detailed order passed on the last occasion, le the notice be issued to the concerned DCP to offer her comments concerning the change of stance adopted by the DCP from 29.09.2021 to 24.11.2021 concerning the issue. To reiterate, on 29.09.2021, the said DCP had submitted a report before the Ld. Trial Court stating that there was no delay in registration of the FIR by the applicant who was the then SHO. On the Ld. Trial Court not being satisfied with the said report, the said DCP issued 20 OA No.842/2023 the Show Cause Notice dated 12.10.2021 for Censure and the same was confirmed also on 24.11.2021. This action of the respondents is the subject matter of challenge in the present OA.
We are piqued by the change of the stand of the concerned DCP with a short time period of two months.
We are of the opinion that instead of the department, it is the concerned DCP who can offer her comments.
In view of the same, issue Dasti notice to Ms. Esha Pandey, Addl. Commissioner of Police, BPRD (Bureau of Police Research and Development), Head Quarters MHA, Mahipalpur, who shall file her comments within a period of one week.
List on 21.02.2025."
18. On 24.02.2025, the matter was again taken up for hearing. Counsel for the respondents stated that he has not received any comments from the department nor from the concerned DCP. He, however, submitted that the Show Cause Notice and Impugned Order confirming the same are self-explanatory wherein the events have been stated in quite some details.
19. Counsel for the applicant reiterated his arguments that the imposition of the punishment of censure is nothing but afterthought and a counter blast to the orders passed by the learned trial court. He also reiterated that the strictures and 21 OA No.842/2023 orders passed by the learned trial court already stand quashed by the Hon'ble High Court. He submitted that it is a matter of fact that no delay occurred in the Registry of the FIR.
20. In our opinion, the entire exercise of issuance of notice and confirmation of the same and punishing the applicant with the punishment of censure is based on extraneous circumstances. The report submitted by the DCP before the learned trial court does not indict the applicant for the delay in registering the FIR or for lack of supervision. Even otherwise, the extraneous circumstances do not exist and have been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court. The applicant cannot be made to continue to suffer because of the same.
21. In the circumstances, considering the above, the OA is allowed and the impugned order of censure is quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits as per law.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/uma/