Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. vs Laxmi Narain Meena
2011 Latest Caselaw 4184 Del

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                              WP(C) No.2458/2011

%                       Date of Decision: 29.08.2011


Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.                              .... Petitioners

                     Through Mr. Tarun Diwan, Advocate

                                  Versus

Laxmi Narain Meena                                      .... Respondent

                     Through Nemo


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may           YES
         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?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

1. The petitioners, Govt. of NCT of Delhi through the Commissioner

of Police, Delhi & Ors., have challenged the order dated 11th August,

2010 in OA No. 2458/2009 passed by the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Principal Bench in the matter titled as 'Laxmi Narain Meena v.

Govt. of NCT of Delhi' setting aside the punishment order dated 7th

April, 1999 and the appellate order dated 22nd October, 1999 as well as

order dated 28th May, 2001 in the review application. The Tribunal held

that the respondent is entitled to all consequential benefits in

accordance with rules, subsequent to the acquittal of the respondent in

the criminal case filed against him, being case No. 88/2003 titled as

'State v. Laxmi Narain Meena', as in the said matter by order dated 24th

April, 2008 it was held that the prosecution had failed to prove the

charges against the respondent, thereby, acquitting the respondent by

giving him the benefit of doubt.

2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes between the parties are

that one Sh. Sanjay Sharma s/o Sh. Late Uma Kant Sharma, resident

of HN. 4278, Jogiwar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi was in the habit of filing

false complaints against the innocent residents of the locality.

Consequently, Sh. Sanjay Sharma, was summoned by the SHO,

Chandni Chowk, to inquire into his most recent complaint. However,

Sh.Sanjay Sharma allegedly did not turn up to join the inquiry. It was

alleged that on 5th October, 1997, while the SHO was out of the station,

the respondent, who is residing with Sh. Sanjay Sharma in his father-

in-law's property being No. 404, Haider Kuli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi,

came to the Police Station, Chandni Chowk, on behalf of Sh. Sanjay

Sharma. The allegation was also made against the respondent that he

had rudely replied on enquiring the purpose for his visit that he had

come to see the SHO, Chandni Chowk, in order to know the reason why

his friend Sh. Sanjay Sharma was being called to the Police Station. It

was further alleged that he forcibly snatched the Daily Diary Register

from the duty officer on 11th August, 1997 and also misbehaved and

threatened SI Ranbir Singh with dire consequences. Therefore, a

departmental inquiry was recommended against him. The departmental

inquiry was conducted against the respondent and the Inquiry Officer

had held him guilty of the charges framed against him. The Disciplinary

Authority, after going through the report of the inquiry officer, had

passed the punishment order of forfeiture of one year of approved

service on a permanent basis and also ordered the reduction of pay of

the respondent from Rs.6,200/- per month to Rs. 6,025/- per month

for a period of one year. It was also held that the respondent could not

earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and that the

reduction would have the effect of constraints on his future increment

of pay. An appeal was filed against the said order which was dismissed

on 22nd October, 1999 and a review application filed by the respondent

was also dismissed on 28th May, 2001. A criminal case on the same

allegations was also initiated against the respondent under Sections

189/500/506(1) of IPC r/w Section 60 (a)/122/65/119/ 91/93/97 of

the Delhi Police Act in Case No. 88/2003. The respondent had pleaded

not guilty and the case was tried on merits. The Metropolitan

Magistrate, on perusing the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4

and PW-8, held that it is apparent that none of the witnesses are public

witnesses and that even though they had deposed that the respondent

had used abusive language, complete reliance on their testimonies is

not prudent since all of the witnesses are sub-ordinate to the

complainant. The Magistrate also took cognizance of the fact that the SI

Surender, Additional SHO, who was the complainant in the case,

should not have investigated the matter himself, which creates a doubt

as to whether the investigation against the respondent had been

carried out fairly by him or not. On perusal of the entire testimonies

recorded before the Criminal Court, it was held that the prosecution

had failed to prove the charges against the respondents under the

Indian Penal Code as well as under Delhi Police Act, and, therefore, the

respondent was acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt.

3. Pursuant to the acquittal of the respondent, since the prosecution

had failed to make out the case against the respondent, by order dated

2nd September, 2008, the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Special Cell, who

was the Disciplinary Authority at that time, had held that no further

departmental action is required to be taken against the respondent.

The order dated 2nd September, 2008, passed under Rule 12 of Delhi

Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980 reads as under:-

"Consequent upon the judgment dated 24.4.2008 in a kalandara prepared vide DD No. 9-A dated 5.10.1997 u/s 189/500/506 (1) IPC, 60(a)/122/65/119/91/93/97 D.P. Act P.S. Chandni Chowk, Delhi passed by the Learned Court of Shri Jagdish Kumar, M.M., Delhi, the case of SI (Exe.) Laxmi Narain No. D/3214 (PIS No. 28770579) has been carefully considered and examined under rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 in the overall facts and circumstances of the case and it has been decided that no further departmental action is warranted against him."

4. The petitioners, in the circumstances, did not invoke any of the

exceptions carved out in Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment and

Appeal) Rules, 1980 for continuing the departmental proceeding and

implementing the punishment orders dated 7th April, 1999 and order

dated 22nd October, 1999 dismissing the appeal against the punishment

imposed on the respondent.

5. Despite the order dated 2nd September, 2008 passed by the

petitioner under Rule 12 of Delhi Police (P&A) Rules, 1980, the

punishment awarded by order dated 7th April, 1999 was still sought to

be implemented. Therefore, a representation was filed by the

respondent which was rejected by the petitioners, entailing the filing of

an original application being O.A. no. 2458/2009 by the respondent

before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the

respondent categorically contended that since the petitioners

themselves had passed the order under Rule 12 of Delhi Police (P&A)

Rules, 1980 holding that no further departmental action is warranted

against the respondent, the punishment order passed earlier could not

be implemented. The respondent also contended that as per the said

Rules, simultaneous proceedings could not be initiated against the

respondent on the same set of facts. In any case, after acquittal in the

criminal case, since the order dated 2nd September, 2008 was passed

under Rule 12, without invoking any exception as contemplated under

the said rule the punishment could not be imposed upon the

respondent even if the punishment order dated 7th April, 1999 was

passed prior to the acquittal of the respondent on 24th April, 2008 in

the criminal case. It was also contended that the order dated 2nd

September, 2008 passed by the petitioners under Rule 12 of Delhi

Police (P&A) Rules, 1980 has neither been challenged nor can be

negated in any manner nor can it be ignored on any grounds as it was

passed by the Competent Authority, which was the disciplinary

authority at that time.

6. Before the Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the petitioners

that though the order dated 2nd September, 2008 was passed by the

then Competent Authority holding that no further departmental action

is warranted, however, the respondent had approached the Police

Headquarter for the grant of first financial up-gradation under ACP

Scheme w.e.f. 21st November, 2003. The Police Headquarter, by

communication dated 5th January, 2009, had directed the respondent

to first approach the Disciplinary Authority to get the said order of

punishment dated 7th April, 1999 set aside and after getting the same

set aside, he could approach the Police Headquarter for the review of his

ACP Scheme. The respondent had filed a representation dated 23rd

March, 2009, which was, however, rejected by order dated 17th June,

2009 on the ground that he had availed all the remedies under the

provisions of Delhi Police (P&A) Rules, 1980 and therefore, there was no

provision for review of the punishment order by the

Disciplinary/Appellate Authority. While passing the order dated 17th

June, 2009, the order dated 2nd September, 2008 by the Disciplinary

Authority that no further departmental action is warranted against him

was not considered as no reasons were given for not following the order

dated 2nd September, 2008 which was also passed by a competent

Disciplinary Authority.

7. The Tribunal considered the pleas and contentions of the parties

and held that in view of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority,

dated 2nd September, 2008, pursuant to the acquittal of the respondent

in the criminal proceedings by order dated 24th April, 2008, the

punishment order dated 7th April, 1999 was not warranted and, in any

case, stood overruled and therefore, there was no requirement to get the

punishment order reviewed by the Disciplinary Authority as it had

already been held that no further departmental action was warranted

against the respondent. It was further observed that the order dated

2nd September, 2008, passed under Rule 12 of Delhi Police (P&A) Rules,

1980 was passed by the competent Disciplinary Authority and

therefore, the plea of the petitioners that the respondent was liable to

approach the Disciplinary Authority to get the punishment order set

aside was also held to be without any basis.

8. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the coordinate benches and

thus, allowed the original application and set aside the punishment

order dated 7th April, 1999, the appellate order dated 22nd October,

1999 as well as the order passed while rejecting the review on 28th May,

2001 in view of the subsequent Disciplinary Authority's order dated 2nd

September, 2008 passed under Rule 12 of Delhi Police (P&A) Rules,

1980. The plea of the petitioner that the Original Application filed by

the respondent was barred by limitation was also rejected in view of the

fact that the cause of action accrued only after the Disciplinary

Authority had passed the order dated 2nd September, 2008 under Rule

12 of Delhi Police (P&A) Rules, 1980 and therefore, the respondent had

approached the Tribunal within the stipulated period of limitation.

9. The order of the Tribunal is challenged by the petitioners

contending primarily that the judgments relied on by the Tribunal are

not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, as in some of

the cases the punishment orders pursuant to the disciplinary

proceedings were passed after the acquittal of the charged officer in the

criminal proceedings. Relying on Rule 12, it was contended that the

said Rule contemplates that when a police officer has been tried and

acquitted he should not be punished departmentally on the same

charge and on the same set of facts, if he has not already been

punished by the Disciplinary Authority. It was contended that since in

the case of the respondent he had already been punished by the

Disciplinary Authority, consequently, the rigor of Rule 12 would not

have any application, as the acquittal of the respondent in the criminal

case was later on by order dated 24th April, 2008.

10. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in

detail. The learned counsel has failed to explain and satisfy as to why

the order dated 2nd September, 2008, passed under Rule 12 of Delhi

Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980 cannot be given effect to

holding that no further departmental action is warranted against the

respondent. This is not disputed that the order dated 2nd September,

2008 is passed by the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent. If the

Disciplinary Authority has later on applied Rule 12 and has held that

no further action is warranted and has not taken shelter under any of

the exceptions to Rule 12 of Delhi Police (P&A) Rules, 1980, the

petitioners cannot contend that the punishment order is to be given

effect to and the departmental action is warranted. The learned counsel

for the petitioner is unable to show any ground on the basis of which it

can be held that the order dated 2nd September, 2008 passed by the

Disciplinary Authority is illegal, irregular or invalid. Rather, no plea has

even been taken that the order dated 2nd September, 2008 passed by

the Disciplinary Authority was without jurisdiction or that the

Disciplinary Authority was not competent to pass such an order.

11. The decision of the High Court in CWP No. 2371/2004, Joginder

Singh v. GNCTD decided on 27th July, 2010 is also distinguishable as

no orders under Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,

1980 were passed in those cases holding that on account of acquittal of

the charged officer no further departmental action was warranted

against the charged officer, whereas in the case of the respondent a

specific order has been passed by the competent disciplinary authority

of the petitioners holding that no further departmental action was

warranted against the respondent.

12. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the benefit

of Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (P&A) Rules, 1980 cannot be given to the

respondent because he was merely acquitted by being given the benefit

of doubt, is also not sustainable because the Disciplinary Authority

while passing the order under Rule 12 of the said Rules have not

invoked any of the exceptions to the said Rule. In any case, the

acquittal of the respondent by the Criminal Court by order dated 24th

August, 2008, after perusing the testimonies of all the witnesses cannot

be termed to be a technical acquittal so as to attract Rule 12 (a) of Delhi

Police (P&A) Rules, 1980. The acquittal of the respondent was not on

technical grounds as the charge was enquired into and the evidence led

was considered and found to be insufficient to convict the respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be allowed to contend

contrary to the order passed by the petitioners themselves, wherein no

exception under Rule 12 was invoked. The learned counsel for the

petitioners has not raised any other ground for impugning the order of

the Tribunal nor has he relied on any precedents in support of his pleas

and contentions.

13. For the foregoing reasons, there are no grounds to interfere with

the orders of the Tribunal as there is no such illegality or irregularity or

any such perversity, which will entail any interference by this Court in

exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

14. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. All the pending

applications are also disposed of.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

August 29, 2011.

'rs'