Inspector Rajinder Adhikari vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors

Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)

This Original Application (OA) has been filed by the applicant claiming the following reliefs:-

"(i) to quash and set aside the impugned show cause notice dated 24.01.2012 and punishment order dated 21.06.2012.

(ii) quash and set aside the Appellate authority order dated 25.02.2013.

(iii) To declare the action of the respondent in issuing notice for censure as illegal and allow the OA with cost and grant all consequential benefits to the applicant.

(iv) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon"ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case."

The facts, in brief, are that the applicant was issued a show cause notice dated 24.01.2012 on allegation that one Qayum Sheikh s/o Abdul Ali was arrested on 13.07.2011 in case FIR No. 319/11 u/s 392 IPC PS Jagat Puri and he was granted bail on 12.01.2012 by the court of ASJ & DJ, KD Court Delhi but the information sheet in respect of accused Qayum Sheikh was not verified till the date of grant of bail and secondly that information was not passed on to the office of the Dy. Commissioner of Police about the arrest of a Bangladeshi National for onward transmission to FRRO and Ministry of External Affairs through Police Headquarters. He submitted reply to the said show cause notice on 04.04.2012.

It is submitted that the disciplinary authority, without considering any of the contentions raised in his reply, imposed the punishment of "censure" vide order dated 21.06.2012, which is also confirmed by the appellate authority on 25.02.2013.

It is also alleged that though show cause notices were issued to other Sub Inspectors, namely Vijay Kumar and Love Attrary on the same allegations but they were exonerated from the same charge vide orders dated 20.12.2012 and 25.09.2012. As such, the applicant was also required to be treated in the same manner. The respondents have thus acted in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The respondents have filed their reply stating therein that the allegation leveled in the show cause notice is correct and true because as per the rules/instructions, being the then SHO/Jagat Puri, it was the duty of the applicant to get verified the information sheet immediately on the arrest of the accused Qayum Sheikh but he did not do so. Secondly, the applicant did not pass any information to the office of DCP/East District regarding arrest of Bangladeshi National for onward transmission to FRRO and Ministry of External Affairs through Police Headquarters which was essentially required.

As regards the plea of the applicant that he was not directly concerned with the investigation, the respondents submitted that it is already mentioned in the order by the then disciplinary authority that on the perusal of the copy of information sheet it revealed that the said information sheet was not verified from the concerned PS as no verification report was found entered or appended on the information sheet. It was very much considered that the case was handled by SI Vijay Kumar and SI Love Attrey and disciplinary action was also initiated against them. SI Vijay Kumar was not the main IO, he was only assisting the IO in the case in question. The bail mater have to be attended by the main IO and by the applicant being the then SHO/Jagat Puri, but they did not prefer to attend the Court and SI Vijay Kumar was detailed to appear in the Court. Further, it was also observed by the disciplinary authority that SI Vijay Kumar was under "D" course of his practical training and was not fully aware of the procedure to prepare and file the report in the court in such matters. He was also not acquainted with the facts of the case and he simply appeared in the Court on instructions of the IO - applicant in this case. Hence, no fault was found on his part. As regards SI Love Attray, it is stated that his disciplinary authority was very much requested to take suitable disciplinary action against him. However, being SHO, it was the bonafide duty of the applicant to ensure the proper verification of information sheet from concerned PS and to furnish the requisite information to the office of DCP/East District. Hence, the plea taken by the applicant is wrong and denied.

In reply to the plea taken by the applicant as to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in punishing him and exonerating the other two officials, namely SI Vijay Kumar and SI Love Attray, from the same charge, it is fairly submitted by the respondents that no fault was found on the part of SI Vijay Kumar as already mentioned in the above para, whereas in respect of SI Love Attray, his disciplinary authority had been requested to take suitable disciplinary action against him and that he had also been warned to be careful for the lapse. Hence, it is denied that there is any violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in any way.

We have heard both sides and gone through the pleadings.

The short issue involved in this case is whether the applicant was responsible for the omission committed on his part as Investigating Officer. No doubt, being the then SHO/Jagatpuri, it was his duty to get verified the information sheet immediately on the arrest of accused Qayum Sheikh, but he neither did so nor did he pass any information to the office of DCP/East District regarding arrest of Bangladeshi National for onward transmission to FRRO and Ministry of External Affairs through Police Headquarter. The Hon"ble Supreme Court with regard to imposition of penalty has held in Civil Appeal No. 4722 of 1996 State of U.P. Vs. Nand Kishore Shukla and another (L &S) 867 decided on 11.03.96 as under:-

"...... It is settled law that the court is not a court of appeal to go into the question of imposition of the punishment. It is for the Disciplinary Authority to consider what would be nature of punishment to be imposed on a government servant based upon the misconduct proved against him. Its proportionality also cannot be gone into by the court. The only question is whether the Disciplinary Authority would have passed such an order. It is settled law that even one of the charges, if held proved and sufficient for imposition of penalty by the Disciplinary Authority or by the Appellate Authority, the court would be loath to interfere with that part of the order. The order of removal does not cast stigma on the respondent to disable him from seeking any appointment elsewhere. Under these circumstances, the High Court was wholly wrong in setting aside the order...."

Thus, in the absence of any procedural illegality and irregularity, in the conduct of DE, no ground to interfere with the impugned enquiry proceedings and orders is made out, in view of law laid down by Hon"ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Another Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and Others (2009) 15 SCC 620.

With regard to the allegation made by the applicant that he was treated in a different manner, whereas other two Sub Inspectors, namely Vijay Kumar and Love Attrary were exonerated from the same charge, this plea cannot be a ground to allow this OA. With regard to award of punishment to other two SIs as compared to applicant, the Hon"ble Supreme in the case of Balbir Chand Vs. Food Corporation of India Ltd 1997 (3) SCC 371 has held as under:-

"..........It is further contended that some of the delinquents were let off with a minor penalty while the petitioner was imposed with a major penalty of removal from service. We need not go into that question.

Merely because one of the officers was wrongly given the lesser punishment compared to others against whom there is a proved misconduct, it cannot be held that they should also be given the lesser punishment lest the same mistaken view would be repeated. Omission to repeat same mistake would not be violative of Article 14 and cannot be held as arbitrary or discriminatory leading to miscarriage of justice. It may be open to the appropriate higher authority to look into the matter and taken appropriate decision according to law...."

The same view was reiterated by the Hon"ble Supreme in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. UOI 1995 (6) SCC 749 and it was held as under:-

"Service Law - Writ - Power under Article 226 of the High Court - To impose appropriate punishment - The High Court/Tribunal while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally come to its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. (Constitution of India, Article 226).

No doubt, while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Courts have to bear in mind the restraints inherent in exercising power of judicial review. It is because of this that substitution of High Court's view regarding appropriate punishment is not permissible."

Recently, the Hon"ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Ors Vs Ram Dass Rakesh has decided on quantum of punishment. The relevant portion of the judgements is quoted below:-

"...5. When we apply these principles to the present case, our conclusion would be that the approach of the learned Tribunal is not correct in law. No doubt, in the first blush it appears that allegations against all three officials are of similar nature, which related to non-payment of 8 money orders to the payees. However, the role of the three officials, it is natural, would be different. Depending upon that if the disciplinary authority in the case of other two officials decided to impose a particular punishment, that would not mean that same punishment is to be meted out to the respondent as well. Before the disciplinary authority of the respondent the charge against the respondent for misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 12,000/- is proved. The charge in itself is a very serious charge and punishment of dismissal on such a charge should not have been interfered with unless the penalty is shockingly disproportionate to the proven charge. Even if one proceeds with the assumption that other two officials are given lesser punishment wrongly, that would not mean that lesser punishment should have been given to the respondent as well, who had committed grave misconduct, and when such a case is treated in isolation, even as per the Tribunal, the misconduct justified imposition of this kind of penalty. The concept of discrimination would be alien in such a situation...".

The judgments relied upon by the applicant in the case of Inspector Rajinder Singh Adhikari v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (OA No. 505/2012) decided on 19.03.2013 and Ved Bhushan v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (OA No. 2396/2012) dated 18.02.2013 are on a different footing and will not come to the rescue of the applicant.

In view of the facts of the case and decision in the inquiry proceedings, it is clear that the proceedings have been carried out as per rules and the punishment has been given according to the rules. There is no defect in the actions carried out in the disciplinary proceedings and the applicant has been given penalty after following all due proceedings. The applicant has only been given penalty of "censure" which is, in fact, one of the lowest penalities which could have been given in the circumstances.

Further the O.A. has been examined in terms of decisions passed by the Hon"ble Supreme Court and High Court and the ratio laid down in the said judgements. Accordingly, we find no merit in this O.A. and it is dismissed. No order as to costs.