Mir Singh v. Govt of NCT & Ors.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 26.04.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/ Tribunal) in O.A. No.1941/2012, whereby the petitioner’s Original Application was dismissed. The petitioner also assails the show-cause notice dated 01.04.2010; the punishment order dated 13.05.2010 passed by the DCP (North-West) and; the order dated 14.02.2010 dismissing the petitioner’s departmental appeal against imposition of the penalty of censure upon the petitioner. 2014:DHC:5073-DB

2. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Inspector (SHO), Police Station Model Town, when he was issued a show-cause notice dated 01.04.2010 to explain why he should not be censured for gross misconduct, negligence & lack of supervision in discharge of his official duties relating to investigation of 31 cases. The petitioner sent his reply, and after considering the same, the disciplinary authority issued the impugned order dated 13.05.2010 imposing punishment of censure upon him. His departmental appeal was rejected on 14.02.2010, which led to filing of the aforesaid Original Application.

3. The petitioner did not dispute the fact that in respect of 31 cases referred to in the said show-cause notice, action was not taken and they became time barred. However, the explanation furnished by the petitioner was that he had taken over the charge of Inspector (SHO), Police Station Model Town only on 16.11.2007, by which time all the 31 cases referred to in the said show-cause notice had already become barred by time. His defence was that he was not responsible for the cases getting time barred and no fault could be found with the conduct of the petitioner. He contended that many of the Investigating Officers dealing with those cases had got transferred to different police stations and taken the concerned files along with them. He claimed that after he took over as Inspector (SHO), Police Station Model Town, he had tried to contact the concerned Investigating Officers for returning the files so that the challans could be filed in the Court and this fact was brought to the notice of the higher authorities.

4. The Original Application was contested by the respondent, who stated that the petitioner did not take any action for almost 6-7 months after taking over the charge as Inspector (SHO), Police Station Model Town in respect of the said 31 cases.

5. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and perusing the record rejected the application by holding as follows: “6. We find that the applicant had taken over as SHO, Model town on 16.11.2007, he does not seem have taken any action for speeding up investigation of the 31 cases and filing challan in the Court for almost 6/7 months. It was only on 05.05.2008 that he has brought to the notice of higher authorities that the files concerning these cases were not traceable. Thus, for 6/7 months no action had been taken for filing these cases in the Court. Records also do not reveal any effort on the part of the applicant to seek condonation of delay from the Court. Thus, it appears that there is no merit in the contention of the applicant that as far as he was concerned he had taken timely action regarding these cases.

7. The other ground taken by the applicant was that these cases had already become time barred before his joining the aforesaid police station. He has contended that the other officers during whose tenure these cases should have been expedited were not punished by the department. In our opinion, this defence of the applicant is not acceptable. While the other officials involved may or may not have been punished, this does not absolve the applicant of the charge for which he has been censured.”

6. Before us as well, the submission of petitioner is the same, namely, that the 31 cases in question had already become barred by limitation when he took over charge as Inspector (SHO), Police Station Model Town. The submission of the petitioner is that he has unnecessarily been targeted even though he was not the Investigating Officer in respect of the said 31 cases.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of the Court to the appellate order dated 14.02.2010. Learned counsel submits that the authorities were conscious of the fact that the 31 cases had become time barred before the petitioner took over the charge as Inspector (SHO), Police Station Model Town. The appellate authority had observed that the record did not reflect that any sincere effort was made on behalf of the petitioner to get the cases put up in the Court by condoning the delay. Learned counsel submits that this clearly shows that the petitioner acted casually and negligently in the discharge of his duties since he did not take any action in respect of the said 31 cases for over six months. Had the respondent acted diligently, the challans would have been filed with applications to seek condonation of delay. Learned counsel also submits that action has also been taken against the other officers, who were the Investigating Officers in these cases at the relevant time.

8. We have heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned order. No doubt, the petitioner had joined as Inspector (SHO), Police Station Model Town after the 31 cases in question had become time barred, however, that by itself would not justify the failure on behalf of the petitioner to take action for 6-7 months, as it was possible for the petitioner to file the challans in the concerned court along with applications to seek condonation of delay under Section 473 Cr.P.C. However, he did not do so, for which there is no explanation. In these circumstances, the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the Tribunal that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct cannot be faulted. The penalty imposed is a minor penalty which cannot be said to be disproportionate to the misconduct found against the petitioner.

9. For the above reasons, we find no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed.

VIPIN SANGHI, J. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2014 B.S. Rohella