Delhi High Court
Inspector Lakshmi Chand Yadav vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 3 June, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* 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
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.
7. Entries in cash register were not proper and never
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
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
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
