Constable Mangal Singh vs Govt. Of NCTD And Ors

K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)

Through the medium of this O.A., filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following main reliefs:-

"i) To set aside the impugned order dated 20.11.12 whereby the major punishment i.e. forfeiture of ten (10) years approved service permanently has been imposed upon the applicant entailing proportionate reduction in his pay at A-1 and order dated 22.3.13 whereby the appeal of the applicant is rejected by the Appellate Authority at A-2 and to further direct the respondents that the forfeited years of service alongwith pay scale and increment be restored as it was never forfeited with all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion and pay and allowances.

ii) To direct the respondent that Suspension period of the applicant from 7.9.11 to 20.6.12 be treated as „Spent on Duty" for all intent and purposes.

iii) To set aside the finding of enquiry officer A-3."

The factual matrix of the case, as noticed from the records, is as under:-

2.1 The applicant is working as a Constable in Delhi Police. On 25.07.2011, when his wife, Smt. Durga Devi @ Meena, was going to pick up her son from Vidhya Jain Public School, Sector-6 Rohini and was crossing the road, one Scorpio car hit her and as a consequence thereof, she was grievously hurt, and consequently, an FIR No.214/2011 dated 25.07.2011 under Sections 307/120B/34 of IPC came to be registered at North Delhi, Police Station, New Delhi on a PCR call.

2.2 During the course of investigation, the investigating officer came to a conclusion that a conspiracy had been hatched by the applicant to eliminate his wife since he was not having cordial marital relationship with her. Accordingly, the applicant and 6 others were tried in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in SC No.26/15, FIR No.214/2011.

2.3 The applicant was arrested and was also placed under suspension w.e.f. 07.09.2011 (i.e., from the date of his arrest vide order of even date). He was subsequently reinstated in service vide order dated 21.06.2012.

2.4 The applicant was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The charge against the applicant in the disciplinary proceedings was as under:-

"It is alleged against Consatable Mangal Singh No.7553/DAP (PIS No.28940078) that a case FIR No.214/2011, dated 25/07/2011, U/s 307/120-B/34 IPC, PS North Rohini, Delhi was registered on a PCR call received vide DD No.16-A dated 25- 07-11 at 12.40 P.M. at PS North Rohini regarding an accident near Vidya Jain School, Sec-6, Rohini. The victim namely Smt. Meena W/o Mangal Singh was admitted to BSA Hospital vide MLC No.7044/11 where doctors declared her unfit for statement. In this regard a case of hit and run was registered U/s 279/337 IPC and investigation was taken up. On 06.09.2011, an information was received from PS Saket that accused Amit S/o Ram Bilas, Anoop S/o Hanuman Singh, Anees S/o Abdul Hafiz and Billo Choudhary S/o Ram Sagar were arrested in case FIR No.288/11 U/s 411/482/34 IPC, PS Saket and U/s 41.1 (a) Cr. PC they had disclosed involvement in the present case and revealed a startling story of conspiracy hatched by accused Mangal Singh @ Subhash, a suspended Constable to eliminate his wife Smt. Meena Devi in a fake road accident case. The disclosure statements and relevant documents were collected. The Sections were changed to 307/120-B/34 IPC and subsequently the accused were arrested in the instant case. The accused Mangal Singh disclosed that he got married with Meena in 1995. She had filed a case of cruelty and dowry demand against Mangal Singh and his family members and got all of them arrested against anticipatory bail. She had also filed a case for maintenance. The matter was later compromised and both started living together at C-4/225, Sec-6, Rohini. But the relationship did not rest at peace and continued to be sour and incessant quarrel at home led Mangal Singh to decide to get rid of his wife Meena. He took the help of his close friend Raghubir Singh whom he calls "Chacha", who approached Anish, a car dealer of Azadpur, Delhi and his three mechanics namely Amit, Anoop and Billoo to execute the task they planned. Amit, Anoop and Billoo in conspiracy with Mangal Singh, Raghubir Singh and Anish accepted the Supari for Rs.1 Lac for eliminating Smt. Meena, Amit, Anoop and Billoo hired a Scorpio vehicle for using in commission of crime. They surveyed the place of accident several times and also laid trap to get chance of the victim to cross the road."

2.5 The inquiry was conducted and the inquiry officer, in his report dated 13.09.2012, concluded as under:-

"Conclusion

Undersigned has carefully gone through the evidence recorded during enquiry proceedings, charge and the defence contentions. From the material on record, it is fully established that charge framed against Const Mangal Singh No.7553/DAP stands fully established."

2.5 The disciplinary authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, 3rd Bn. DAP, Vikas Puri, New Delhi, acting on the inquiry officer"s report, vide his Annexure A-1 order dated 19.11.2012, imposed the punishment of forfeiture of 10 years of approved service permanently on the applicant. His statutory appeal was also dismissed by the appellate authority, namely, the Special Commissioner of Police, Armed Police, Delhi, vide his Annexure A-2 order dated 01.04.2013.

Aggrieved by this, the applicant has approached the Tribunal in the instant O.A. challenging the impugned Annexures A-1 & A-2 orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities respectively as well as the Annexure A-3 inquiry officer"s report.

During the course of hearing on 30.08.2018, Mr. Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel for applicant brought to our notice that the applicant has since been acquitted in the criminal case by the Additional Sessions Judge, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi vide order dated 26.07.2017. A copy of the said order has also been placed on record by the applicant through M.A. No.3569/2017.

Mr. Sachih Chauhan submitted that in view of the acquittal of the applicant in the criminal case, the disciplinary and appellate authorities are obliged to re-visit their orders in terms of Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. In this regard, he drew our attention to the judgment of a Full Bench of this Tribunal in Sukhdev Singh & another v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & others (O.A. No.2816/2008 with connected cases) decided on 18.02.2011, wherein it has been held as under:-

"9. In view of the discussion made above, we hold that there is no bar, express of implied, in the Rules of 1980 for holding simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings. However, in case of departmental proceedings may culminate into an order of punishment earlier in point of time than that of the verdict in criminal case, and the acquittal is such that departmental proceedings cannot be held for the reasons as mentioned in rule 12, the order of punishment shall be re-visited. The judicial verdict would have precedence over decision in departmental proceedings and the subordinate rank would be restored to his status with consequential reliefs."

We have perused the criminal court"s order dated 26.07.2017 in SC No.26/2015 - State v. Mangal Singh & others. The operative part of the order reads as under:-

"32. Accordingly, in view of the above discussions, I am of the considered view, that, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, against the accused persons. Accordingly, all the accused persons, namely, Mangal Singh, @ Subhash, Raghuvir Singh Rathore, Anoop, Anish and Billu Choudhary, are acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 120B of IPC and for the offence punishable U/s 307/120B/34 of IPC."

We have also gone through the judgment of the Full Bench of this Tribunal in Sukhdev Singh's case (supra). We are convinced with the arguments of learned counsel for applicant that in the light of acquittal of the applicant from the criminal case, the disciplinary and appellate authorities are required to re-visit their orders.

In the conspectus, we set aside the impugned Annexures A-1 & A-2 orders passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities respectively as also the Annexure A-3 inquiry officer"s report. We direct the disciplinary authority to take cognizance of acquittal of the applicant in the criminal case and re-look at the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. The disciplinary authority is, however, at liberty to pass fresh order in the disciplinary proceedings, if it so wishes.

In view of the above, the O.A. stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

With this, M.A. No.3569/2017 stands disposed of.