* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4152/2011
Inspector Lakshmi Chand Yadav ....Petitioner
Through Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate.
VERSUS
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. .....Respondents
Through Mr.S.Q. Kazim with Mr. Alim Mizaz,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 03.06.2011 SANJIV KHANNA, J.
Inspector Lakshmi Chand Yadav has filed the present writ petition assailing the order dated 31st May, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (tribunal, for short), dismissing his OA No. 3306/2009. In the aforesaid OA, the petitioner had challenged the penalty of censure inflicted on him by order dated 11 th December, 2008. By order dated 12th February, 2009, the appellate authority had rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the penalty of censure is likely to adversely affect the career prospects of the petitioner and there is no justification for imposition of the WPC 4152/2011 Page 1 of 5 said penalty. It is submitted that the alleged lapses pointed out in the show cause notice were not attributable to the petitioner who had been performing his duty diligently and sincerely.
2. We have considered the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner who wants us to examine the findings of facts on merits. Before inflicting the penalty of censure, a show cause notice dated 14th August, 2008 was issued to the petitioner alleging the following defaults:-
"Surprise inspection/checking of Police Stations and Police Post was carried out by the Officers of Vigilance Branch, Delhi during the period from 18-7-2008 to 24- 7-2008. On 19-7-2008 at 1 PM, Inspr. Sunder Singh, Vigilance Branch checked PS Vikas Puri and found the following discrepancies:
1. Cleanliness of PS building including toilets was very poor.
2. Emergency Officers SI Dharampal, SI Hari Krishan and HC Sube Singh were without arms.
3. The officials while making departure/arrival do not sign the DD entries.
4. Disposal of complaints noticed very poor. No goshwara has been maintained.
5. FAX & CCTV were out of order.
6. Malkhana was also found poorly maintained and many of the case properties were found in haphazardous manner. The steps taken for disposal of case properties was very poor.WPC 4152/2011 Page 2 of 5
7. Entries in cash register were not proper and never signed by the SHO. Register Nos. 16, 17 & 21 either were not maintained properly or traceable in PS. All the above discrepancies reflects poorly on the working of Police Station Inspr Lakshmi Chand Yadav, No. D-1/83 being SHO/PS Vikas Puri failed to fllow the instructions of PHQ and also failed to keep proper supervision over the working of I.Os/staff working under his control and proper maintenance of record and equipments of Police Station.
The above act on the part of Inspr. Lakshmi Chand Yadav No. D-1/83 being SHO/PS Vikas Puri amounts to negligence and carelessness, rendering him liable for disciplinary action under the provision of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules - 1980."
3. As is apparent from the show cause notice, the petitioner was working as the SHO, P.S. Vikaspuri. As the SHO, he was overall incharge of Police Station.
4. The explanation given by the petitioner to the aforesaid show cause notice was duly considered and thereafter the punishment of censure was imposed. The aforesaid punishment cannot be said to be a harsh or disproportionate punishment keeping in view the facts of the present case. The petitioner wants us to examine the whole issue and facts as an appellate forum. This is not permissible and cannot be accepted. The respondents WPC 4152/2011 Page 3 of 5 not only have to ensure that discipline is maintained but also that the police stations have and maintain requisite cleanliness, hygiene and records are properly maintained.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority has passed a non-speaking order dismissing the appeal. We have examined the order dated 12th February, 2009, but find that the said order cannot be regarded as a non-speaking order. The appellate authority has recorded as under:-
"I have gone through the appeal and other relevant records. I have also heard the appellant in person on 10.2.09. In his appeal he has stated that as per PHQ instructions Addl. SHO of the Police Station is entrusted with the job of maintenance of Police Station building, upkeep and maintenance of barracks etc. The appellant has brief several times to all the Emergency Officers and Duty Officers to keep the arms and ammunition with them while on duty and make their departure/arrival in their own handwriting. On 19.7.08 when the Vigilance Inspector checked the Police Station, the appellant was not present in the PS and had made his departure in his handwriting. The staff of PS might have been slack in absence of supervisory officer. The Malkhana is maintained properly and entires in the register No. 16 & 21 are upto date and are very much available in the Malkhana. The contractor of PWD was carrying out the repair work of the toilets and "Malba" was lying in the corridor of the building near the main gate which ahs now been removed. Inspr. Vigilance Branch has not properly checked the complaint register, which was kept with the Reader. There was no pendency of WPC 4152/2011 Page 4 of 5 complaints, at PS Vikas Puri and there was no delay in finalization of complaints.
The pleas of the appellant are not convincing. He has tried to shift his responsibility but he cannot absolve himself from his supervisory lapse. Being a chief of the Police Station. It was his prime responsibility to ensure proper supervision over the working of staff under his control and proper maintenance of record and equipments of Police Station. He has failed to implement the direction repeatedly issued from PHQ and to perform his duty as supervising officer. As such, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter. The punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is not excessive and the same is maintained. The appeal is rejected.
Let the appellant be informed accordingly."
6. We do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE June 3, 2011 kkb WPC 4152/2011 Page 5 of 5