Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sanjiv Gupta S/O Prakash Chand Gupta vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 7 March, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.2346 of 2011 Reserved on : 7th February, 2012 Date of decision : 7th March, 2012 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Sanjiv Gupta S/o Prakash Chand Gupta, R/o C-72, Shakti Nagar Extension, Delhi-110052. Applicant ( By Shri S. K. Gupta, Advocate ) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through its Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarter, MSO Building, IP Estate, New Delhhi. 3. Spl. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range, Police Headquarters, MSO Building, IP Estate, New Delhi. 4. Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East District, Delhi. Respondents ( By Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Sanjiv Gupta, an Inspector in Delhi Police, the applicant herein, has been visited with the penalty of censure vide order dated 10.03.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North-East District, Delhi, which has since been confirmed in appeal preferred by him, by the Special Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range, vide order dated 30.05.2011. These are the two orders which are under challenge in the present Original Application filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. Brief facts of the case reveal that a show cause notice for censure came to be issued to the applicant on 20.01.2011 for his alleged grave misconduct, negligence, carelessness and dereliction in discharge of official duties, in that on perusal of case FIR No.265/10 dated 21.12.2010 u/s 379 PS Seelam Pur, it came to be observed that the occurrence of theft of a motorcycle took place on 24.08.2010 and was reported in the police station on the same day, but the case was registered on 21.12.2010, i.e., after lapse of about four months, without giving any reason, which would not be acceptable and feasible besides not being realistic. It was stated to be a clear cut violation of instructions issued by senior officers as regards registration and investigation of cases.
3. Prior to issuance of the show cause notice, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East District, on 24.12.2010 called for explanation of the applicant on the allegations as mentioned above, which, it is the case of the applicant, was received by him on 21.01.2011. On the date aforesaid, i.e., 21.01.2011, the show cause notice was also given to the applicant. The applicant gave his reply to the explanation, but the same was returned stating that the show cause notice had already been issued. It may be recalled that the show cause notice came to be issued to the applicant on the same day, i.e., 21.01.2011. The applicant submitted reply to the show cause notice also on 28.02.2011. The plea raised by the applicant in his defence was that he was working as SHO, PS Seelam Pur at the relevant time. Information with regard to theft of one motorcycle with incomplete particulars was received in the police station, which was entered as DD entry No.39A and the same was marked to SI Manoj Kumar for further action. Since the particulars, like engine and chasis number were not provided by the complainant, and even the registration number of the motorcycle was not complete, SI Manoj Kumar insisted upon the complainant for providing the same, as in the absence of the aforesaid particulars, FIR could not be registered. However, the complainant submitted in writing that he did not want to pursue the case and that further information would be provided as soon as the same may be available. On extra efforts put in by the applicant, the complainant provided the particulars of the motorcycle on 21.12.2010, and on the same day FIR was registered. The notice issued to the applicant was confirmed and his conduct, as mentioned above, came to be censured. It does not appear that the disciplinary authority may have discussed the defence projected by the applicant and rejected it by a process of reasoning. The relevant part of the order passed by the disciplinary authority reads as follows:
The show cause notice for censure was served upon him. He has submitted his written reply in response to the show cause notice for censure. I have perused the reply submitted by Inspr. Sanjeev Gupta, No.D-I/827 and heard in orderly room on 08.03.2011. He stated that due to non-cooperation, non-interest & no furnishing of requisite information, FIR could not be lodged but later on after 03 months 27 days, FIR was lodged on 21.12 2010. By way of sequence of events, facts are evident. The complaint of M.V. theft was registered after 04 months that itself shows that the complainant was very much interested in lodging FIR. But he was not properly distended. It is not out of place to mention that old Motor cycles are used in criminal activities and terrorist related activities. Unless proper FIR is not registered in time, no legal action would be initiated to search that vehicle. There are ample directions from all quarters including worthy C.P. Delhi. But this case of delayed registration shows total disobedience & defiance of all the directions. Hence, I have no ground to take a lenient view. Therefore, show cause notice for censure issued to Inspr. Sanjeev Gupta, No.D-I/827 is confirmed and his conduct is censured. The facts of the case further reveal that the ACP called for explanation of SI Manoj Kumar on 31.12.2010 on the same allegations. It is the case of the applicant that SI Manoj Kumar submitted his reply on the same lines as was the case of the applicant projected in his reply to the show cause notice. The proceedings against Manoj Kumar are stated to have been dropped by giving him only a warning. When this fact became known to the applicant, he referred to the same in his appeal that he preferred against the order dated 10.03.2011 passed by the disciplinary authority, but the appellate authority would not even make a mention of the same, least discussing and opining on the same. Relevant part of the order passed by the appellate authority, reads thus:
Following the appeal, I have head the appellant in O.R. He has nothing to say in addition to what he has already submitted in his appeal. I have also gone through the appeal preferred by the appellant and the other file records and found that he has no justification for three months delay despite CPs specific instructions. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the disciplinary authority. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
4. We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. We are of the firm view that neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority has considered the defence projected by the applicant. Insofar as the disciplinary authority is concerned, as mentioned above, it would not discuss, and by a process of reasoning, reject the defence project by the applicant. Insofar as the appellate authority is concerned, it felt satisfied by simply observing that having heard the applicant no justification was found for the delay caused in registration of the FIR. This is no way to do administrative justice. Any order that may visit a citizen with adverse consequences has to be passed after due application of mind and by a process of reasoning rejecting the defence that may be projected by him. The orders passed by the authorities need to be set aside on the ground as mentioned above. We order accordingly. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to re-visit the show cause notice and the reply filed by the applicant, wherein, besides taking into consideration the defence projected by the applicant, the different treatment meted out to SI Manoj Kumar shall also be taken into consideration. We may only mention at this stage that the Honble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v Raj Pal Singh [(2010) 5 SCC 783] has held that different punishments to different delinquents in respect of same delinquency, would be discriminatory.
5. Before we may part with this order, we may mention that despite the fact that censure may appear to be a minor punishment prescribed under rules, it is often seen that the same turns out as stumbling block in a big way in the matter of promotion of an officer in Delhi Police. Even though, there are instructions to state that unless the censures may be on the allegations of corruption and moral turpitude, the same may not be taken into consideration in case of promotion, but the law that has evolved is that overall service record of an officer is relevant for the purpose of his promotion. That being so, while proposing to visit a police officer with the penalty of censure, the concerned authority is to give serious thought.
6. In view of the fact that considerable time has gone by and the applicant may be suffering in the matter of his service graph, we direct the authorities to do the exercise as ordained hereinabove as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Original Application stands disposed of accordingly. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/