Manoj Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors

R.N.Singh, Member, J

Hard Shri Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms.Sumedha Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

In the present application filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the order bearing no.215-19/SO dated 26.08.2016 (Annexure A-1) vide which the Joint Commissioner of Police, SPUWAC, New Delhi has dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicant against the order dated 16.05.2016, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sub Division Palam IGI Airport, New Delhi (Annexure A-7) vide which the applicant's conduct has been 'censored'.

The applicant has prayed for the following relief in the present OA :-

"i. To set-aside the impugned order of censure which was issued in violation of principles of natural justice.

• Such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Applicant."

The brief facts leading to the present OA are as under:-The applicant while working as Sub Inspector and posted at IGI Airport Police Station was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 25.04.2016 by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sub Division Palam IGI Airport, New Delhi wherein it had been alleged that the applicant was called in the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police on 23.04.2016 at 4:00 p.m. with case files for which DD No.40 B was lodged at Police Station IGI on 22.04.2016 but the applicant did not care for the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Police and he did not reach the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police till 5:00 p.m. On 23.04.2016 the same resulted into a DD entry vide DD entry 11 - A dated 23.04.2016 at Police Station IGI Airport at 5:00 p.m. for non appearance of the applicant. It is stated therein that the said Show Cause Notice that the applicant appeared before the said Assistant Commissioner of Police within next 10 minutes and since he left at 9:00 a.m. to attend a bail matter in case FIR No.462/15 u/s 419,420,467,468,471 IPC and 12 PP Act, at Police Station IGI Airport and the matters are usually heard in the fore-noon. But, inspite of the direction, the applicant did not reach to the office of Assistant Commissioner of Police till 5:00 p.m. And the same shows his ignorance, indiscipline and misconduct in a disciplined force.

By the Show Cause Notice dated 25.04.2016, the applicant had been called upon to show cause as to why his conduct should not be 'censured' for the said lapse and in this regard he was to prefer his reply within 7 days of receipt of such notice.

In response to the said show cause notice the applicant submitted his reply (Annexure A-6) wherein he contended that he went to the Patiala House Court at 9:00 a.m. to attend the bail matter in the said case FIR No.462/15 and attended the matter before the concerned Court at 10:00 a.m. The matter was taken up at 11:00 a.m. and after hearing the same the matter was deferred to 24.07.2016. Thereafter he went to the Prosecution Branch in connection with the scrutiny of case FIR that 71/16 Police Station IGIA Airport. Thereafter, he immediately left the Court and reached to the office of Assistant Commissioner of Police at 5:35 p.m. and he was waiting outside when he got a call from the the Duty Officer, Police Station IGI Airport to inquire about his position and as the some guests were sitting in the office of Assistant Commissioner of Police, he was waiting outside and thereafter he entered into the the room of Assistant Commissioner of Police and informed the facts. He has also submitted therein in the reply that he has never been negligent in following the directions of the senior officers in past and he has always shown good conduct and discipline in discharging of the official duties and therefore, he has requested for filing of the show cause notice under reply.

After receipt of the reply the said Assistant Commissioner of Police has considered his reply and came to the conclusion that the reply submitted by the applicant is not satisfactory and he had given a finding that the applicant neither reached his office in time at 4:00 p.m. nor any intimation was given by him about his being held-up in the Court and accordingly confirmed 'Censure' to the applicant for the said lapse vide order dated 16.05.2016 (Annexure A-7). Aggrieved by the order dated 16.05.2016, the applicant preferred an appeal dated 05.06.2016 (Annexure A-8) and therein he submitted that he was free from the Court at 3:30 p.m. and reached at about 4:30 p.m. and without appreciating his version the order dated 16.05.2016 has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. The Appellate Authority i.e. Joint Commissioner of Police considered the facts in detail and gave a finding that though the Assistant Commissioner of Police had required the applicant to come at 4:00 p.m., admittedly the applicant had neither appeared before the Assistant Commissioner of Police by the said time nor did he even call him to inform his per-occupation. Therefore, such action of the applicant shows his unethical attitude towards seniors and such indiscipline will affect the chain of command in uniform service like police services. The Appellate Authority has also found that the applicant was in Delhi with all connectivity with mobile phone and he could have called and informed about his duties to his senior about his being held-up. In view of such finding the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal of the applicant and confirmed the disciplinary order vide order dated 26.08.2016 (Annexure A-1) impugned.

The learned counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant has informed the Assistant Commissioner of Police over phone regarding applicant about his pre-occupation and the reason of his getting late. He further argues that applicant has always been discharging his duties with at-most sincerity, integrity and efficiency and the respondents have passed the impugned order by ignoring the version of the applicant in his reply to the show cause notice or that in his appeal.

In response to the notice from the Tribunal the respondents have filed detailed Reply disputing and denying the grounds taken by the applicant.

The applicant has also filed Rejoinder reiterating the facts as already stated in his OA.

We have perused the pleadings on record and have also considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

It is admitted fact that the applicant has not appeared before the Assistant Commissioner of Police in time that is at 4:00 p.m. on 23.04.2016 in spite of clear instructions in this regard from the Assistant Commissioner of Police. This fact is evident from the applicants own reply wherein he has contended that he could reach outside at the office of Assistant Commissioner of Police at 4:35 p.m. and in his appeal about his reaching to the office of Assistant Commissioner of Police at about 4:30 p.m. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant had informed the Assistant Commissioner of Police about his being held up in Court and was likely to be late in reaching and reporting to the Assistant Commissioner of Police. In para 5.5 of the OA the applicant has contended that he had informed the Assistant Commissioner of Police over phone regarding his preoccupation and reasons of his coming late. However, the same appears to be an afterthought.

In Union of India & Another vs. P. Guna Sekaran reported in 2015 (4) SLR 244 =AIR 2015 (SC) 545 the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled that in disciplinary proceeding, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second Court of first appeal. The Apex Court further ruled that the Hon'ble High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 - 227 of the Constitution of India, should not venture into re appreciation of the evidence.

We are of the view that in the present case neither the principles of natural justice have been violated nor provisions of any rule or binding instructions have been violated. Moreover, the findings in the impugned order is based on some evidence. The Tribunal is not required to go into the adequacy of evidence.

In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the considered view that the OA is devoid of any merits. Accordingly the same is dismissed.

However in the facts and circumstances no order as to cost.