Insp. (M) Ss Panwar vs Union Of India & Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 4466 Del

19
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

       +      W.P.(C)No.5474/2010 & CM No.10780/2010

                               Date of Decision : 22nd September, 2010
%

      INSP. (M) SS PANWAR                   ..... Petitioner
                      Through : Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Adv.

                      versus

      UNION OF INDIA & ORS              ..... Respondents
                     Through : Ms. Barkha Babbar, Adv.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may                 NO
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?                NO

3.      Whether the judgment should be                        NO
        reported in the Digest?

GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

1. This writ petition has been filed assailing a

transfer/attachment order dated 2nd August, 2010 and 9th

August, 2010.

2. The petitioner is an inspector with the CRPF and was

posted with the 103 Battalion of the Rapid Action Force. We

find that pursuant to the order No.E-TEN-1/2010-RAF-Admn-03

dated 17th May, 2010 issued by Sh. D.R. Pathak, Inspector

General of the Police, Rapid Action Force, a committee of

officers had been constituted for conducting the court of

inquiry to fix the liability and other facts detailed in Appendix-A

thereto. The court of inquiry was directed to conduct its

proceedings as per standing order No.08/2001 and submit a

report within 15 days of the passing of the order.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioner that so far as the present petitioner is concerned, as

per annexure-A aforesaid, the court of inquiry has been

directed to look into the following aspects:-

"xxx02. Not taking action in time by Inspector (M) S.S. Panwar on the note/remarks dated 12.12.2008 pertaining to embezzlement submitted by ASI(M) Parveen Kumar and to cause mental tension to the official, to use unparliamentarily language and to misuse his position by abusing. Apart from this the recovery of `75,672/- to be made from Inspector (M) S.S. Panwar, 106 Bn has booked in 20 installments in 11/2008 but on what basis stopped by 103 Bn from the month of 4/2009 and the Bill of drawing/refund of the recovery amount by 103 Bn, has been sent to the office to Pay and Accounts whereas as per rule the Refund Bill had to be prepared by 106 Bn. Under what authority the recovery of the above amount has been stopped and Bill for refund of the recovered amount has been sent to Pay and Account Office, whether the action was justified.

03. The total amount of pay to be received by Inspector/M S S Panwar under the Sixth Pay Commission, payable amount and the amount to be recovered, the 100 percent arrears of the suspension period from 10.7.2007 to 28.2.2008 has been paid to the Official by EDP Cell by making calculation on the basis of the actual basic pay but not to make the recovery of the excess payment by 103 Bn and how much recovery is required."

4. It is an admitted position that the proceedings of the

court of inquiry have not been completed till date.

5. In the meantime, it appears that Assistant Sub-Inspector

(M) Parveen Kumar, also a personnel of the Rapid Action Force,

filed a WP(C)No.4515/2010 in this court praying for a direction

to the present respondents to take further action and decision

on his complaints dated 12th December, 2008, 24th December,

2008, 10th February, 2010 and 2nd March, 2010 with regard to

irregularities relating to financial dealings and transactions of

persons pertaining to the accounts branch of 103 Battalion

including allegations against the present petitioner. In this writ

petition, an order dated 15th July, 2010 was passed directing

the respondents to consider and take action on the

aforenoticed complaints in accordance with prescribed

procedure. The respondents were directed to act expeditiously

in the matter.

6. The respondents have contended that in view of the

ongoing court of inquiry in which the allegations against him

were also required to be considered, the Inspector General of

Police of the RAF by a signal dated 26th July, 2010 transferred

the petitioner from 103 Battalion to 104 Battalion. Such action

was taken for administrative reasons and to ensure

independent and fair proceedings in the court of inquiry so that

no manipulation of records could take place and witnesses

could not be influenced.

7. It appears that the petitioner sought a personal interview

with the Inspector General of Police on 28th and 29th July, 2010

and projected his problems. Keeping in view the problems put

forth by the petitioner, the Inspector General of Police

reconsidered the entire matter and has stayed the orders of

transfer. A signal dated 2nd August, 2010 has been issued

directing that instead of transfer, the petitioner would stand

attached for a period of three months with 104 Battalion on

administrative grounds.

8. Before us it is an undisputed fact that the said order of

attachment stand implemented. Ms. Barkha Babbar, learned

counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner

stands relieved from 103 Battalion on 11th August, 2010 and

has joined the 104 Battalion.

So far as the court of inquiry is concerned, both parties

submit that the same has not concluded.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

allegations against the petitioner which are under investigation

are not supported by the record of the respondents. He has

placed reliance on the communication dated 16th June, 2010

issued by the Commandant of 106 Battalion which suggests

that certain erroneous recoveries may have been effected

against the petitioner. Elaborate reference has been also made

by learned counsel to the details of the recoveries which have

been effected from the petitioner and it is submitted that the

recovery of amounts is far exceeding the amount recovery

whereof could have been effected.

10. Be that as it may, in the present proceedings, this court is

not required to go into the irregularities or validity of the

recoveries which have been effected. The court of inquiry

which has been constituted is examining this aspect and the

petitioner shall be at liberty to place his entire submissions

before the board of officers which is conducting the same.

11. The learned counsel for the respondents places reliance

on the special audit which was conducted and had submitted a

report on 25th February, 2010. This audit report would

obviously be also considered in the court of inquiry which

would then take a final view before making its

recommendations.

12. So far as the challenge to the order of attachment is

concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended

that the same is contrary to the instructions contained in

Circular Order No.01/2008 dated 12th May, 2008.

13. Perusal of this circular shows that the same relates to

demand by units for attachment of personnel on the ground of

increased needs because of large scale expansion of the posts

and sanction of new institutions. The same does not relate to

attachments for reasons of completion of a court of inquiry or

disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner stands attached

because of the ongoing court of inquiry. This circular would

have no application to a case such as the one in hand.

14. We are informed that after his attachment, the petitioner

has substantially been on leave from the unit to which he has

been attached and even presently is on leave with effect from

13th September, 2010 to 1st October, 2010 with liberty to avail

both 12th September, 2010 and 2nd October, 2010 as gazette

holidays.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has no intention to delay the proceedings in the

court of inquiry and shall ensure that he does not take any

unreasonable leave and facilitates expeditious completion of

the inquiry.

16. The petitioner shall ensure that he facilitates expeditious

completion of the court of inquiry. The respondents shall also

ensure that the same is conducted and completed at the

earliest, preferably within the period of attachment of the

petitioner. In case, the same is not possible, the respondents

shall proceed in the matter in accordance with applicable law

and procedure.

The present writ petition is hopelessly misconceived and

unwarranted.

17. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the

present writ petition and application which are hereby

dismissed.

GITA MITTAL, J

J.R. MIDHA, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 mk