Satyavir Singh vs Govt. Of Nctd & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 572 Del

*                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                            W.P. (C.) No. 8312/2009


%                         Date of Decision: 02.02.2010


Satyavir Singh                                            .... Petitioner
                          Through Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate.


                                   Versus


Govt. of NCTD & Ors.                                      .... Respondents
            Through                Nemo


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may be              YES
         allowed to see the judgment?
2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?                NO
3.       Whether the judgment should be reported in            NO
         the Digest?



ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17th February, 2009

passed in OA No. 1922/2008 titled Inspector Satyavir Singh Vs. Govt. of

NCT of Delhi dismissing his petition against the censure order dated

28th March, 2008 passed against him and appellate order confirming

the censure by order dated 21st July, 2008.

The brief facts to comprehend the disputes are that a show cause

notice for censure was issued to the petitioner dated 13th September,

2007, stipulating that the release order signed by Gandhi Nagar Circle

staff were fictitious and were issued by the police personnel working

under him and he failed to supervise the activities of the staff. The

notice indicated that not only there was poor supervision but blatant

negligence on the part of petitioner then TI/Gandhi Nagar Circle. The

allegation of failure to supervise the activities of the staff and blatant

negligence on the part of the petitioner were made on account of

fictitious release orders which were signed by Gandhi Nagar Circle Staff.

The fictitious release order came to the notice on 5th March, 2007 when

ACP/Traffic, East District stopped a blue line bus No. DL-1PB-0628

and on demanding the documents of the vehicle, four acknowledgement

slips allegedly issued from ACP-T/East Office in lieu of original

documents of vehicles were produced by the driver. On inquiry, it also

transpired that the DD Nos. mentioned in the release order were

fictitious and given by Gandhi Nagar Circle Staff.

Constable Mahipal Singh, Head Constable Pritam Singh, Head

Constable Ram Niwas, Head Constable Jai Prakash, Const. Raj Kumar,

Const. Pawan Kumar and Const. Girish Tyagi who were posted in

Gandhi Nagar Circle and ACP-T/East during the period 1st February,

2006 to 31st December, 2006 were found responsible for the lapses and

the departmental action has been initiated against them.

In the reply to the show cause notice for censure, the petitioner

had admitted that it was his first posting in the Traffic and he had

never been posted as TI in any circle. It was alleged that he had

instructed his reader that every paper coming to CNG Circle as well as

from the Court had to be put up before him and no paper had to be

sent to the office of ACP/Senior officer or in Court without forwarding it

to him. Though he contended that he had made DD entries in respect of

instructions given by him to the reader however, he did not produce the

same on the ground that they had been sent to FSL for report and he

would submit the same as soon as the daily diaries would come back.

The petitioner also relied on the alleged practice of copies of the orders

of permit suspension not practically being sent to TI concerned.

After hearing the pleas and contentions of the petitioner, the

inquiry officer, Dy. Commissioner of Police passed an order holding that

nothing new had been produced by the petitioner except whatsoever

was stated in the reply and the pleas were found to be unacceptable

and thus the pleas do not absolve the petitioner of his responsibility as

traffic inspector of a circle being supervisory officer. It was held that he

should have had a close watch over the activities of his subordinates as

the illegal activities committed by them was not a solitary but continued

for a considerable period and consequently, the conduct of the

petitioner cannot be pardoned and therefore it was censured.

The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Joint

Commissioner of Police (Traffic) holding that the pleas put forth by the

petitioner were not satisfactory or convincing. It was held that being the

supervisory officer of the circle he had to check the activities of his

subordinates involved in such type of activities and his failure on this

ground reflected lack of supervision over the staff and consequently

dismissed the appeal.

Aggrieved by the order of disciplinary authority and the appellate

authority, the petitioner filed an original application being OA No.

1922/2008. The Tribunal also considered in detail the circular and

other material on record and held that the petitioner could not pass on

responsibility to the ACP and his office. It was held that if his specific

instructions to his subordinates were disregarded with impunity it

would only emphasize his failure as TI (GNC) without mitigating the

lapse on his part and consequently the petition was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Arun Bhardwaj has

emphatically contended that the collusion was between some of the

police officers working under him and the constable and police official

working in the office of ACP and he could not have knowledge about the

same. This plea in the present facts and circumstances and in view of

the detailed consideration by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate

Authority and the Tribunal cannot be accepted. Though, the petitioner

has contended that he had made a specific orders that all the orders be

sent through his office and made entries in daily diary however, the

copies of those daily diaries have not been produced on the ground that

they are with the FSL. Even if, it is accepted that he had made the

entries in the daily diary nothing has been shown by him as to what

steps were taken by him to get his order implemented nor it has been

shown as to what steps were taken by him to ascertain that his orders

are being followed and implemented. Merely by passing an order and

incorporating it in the daily diary, he cannot absolve himself.

Merely by passing the order, the petitioner could not expect that

the order would be complied with unless he had taken some conscious

decision for getting it implemented. The alleged instructions to the

Subordinate functionaries were disregarded not once or twice but

continuously with impunity which unequivocally reflects failure on his

part nor his such a plea in the facts and circumstances mitigate the

lapse on his part. In any case, this Court in the exercise of its

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to draw

a different inference and substitute its inference with the inference of

the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. It is not a case of

no evidence or such irregularities which would entail interference by

this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

The writ petition in the facts and circumstances, is without any

merit and it is therefore dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

FEBRUARY 02, 2010                               MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'rs'