Jai Chand vs G.N.C.T Of Delhi And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 250 Del

$~31
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                       Date of decision: January 16, 2013

+                            W.P.(C) 251/2013

       JAI CHAND                                              ..... Petitioner
                             Represented by:    Mr.G.S.Rana, Advocate

                    versus

       G.N.C.T OF DELHI AND ORS             ..... Respondents
                      Represented by: None.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)

1. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that for the indictment in question the petitioner has been acquitted by a criminal court and thus he could not have been subjected to a departmental inquiry on the same allegations.

2. We do not agree. Our reasons.

3. When petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector with Delhi Police was posted at P.S.Badarpur, a minor girl aged 14 years had reached the police station and her father as also a boy named Parveen Kumar Yadav also reached the police station. The father of the girl had lodged a complaint that the boy named Praveen Kumar had kidnapped his daughter. An F.I.R. stood registered. The girl complained that after sending her father and Praveen outside the room, the petitioner misbehaved with her and on the pretext of her personal search had molested her.

4. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint made by the girl to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate when her statement

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on June 21, 2007, but closed the matter as it was found that the girl had lied.

5. However, the departmental inquiry did not pertain to the complaint made by the minor girl. It pertained to the same incident, but with reference to mandatory provisions of law not being followed while carrying out investigation in cases involving juveniles. Inter alia, in the summary of allegations, it was alleged against the petitioner as under:-

"A formal enquiry was got conducted about the above incident which revealed that the above ASI had taken the investigation of the case very casually and did not follow the mandatory provisions of the law which are to be followed while dealing with juvenile cases. On enquiry the following lapses were also found against ASI Jai Chand, No.2407/D, IO of the case:-

1. IO did not make any DD entry regarding the arrival of the prosecutrix in the PS Badarpur on 31.05.07 night till 02.06.07, he neither took Geeta and her boy friend Parveen who had consumed some tablet in the PS to the hospital nor he accompanied them to the hospital. Further he did not make any entry in the interrogation/interview register about the parents of the prosecutrix even when they were present in the police station on the alleged day.

2. IO did not make any departure for investigation in the case from 00.05 hours to till 06.15 hrs on 01.06.07, when he received information vide DD No.89B dated 01.06.07, regarding the admission of prosecutrix and Parveen. Further he recorded false entry of C.D. No.1 regarding search of accused and prosecutrix.

3. IO ASI Jai Chand did not apply to the magistrate for getting the statement of prosecutrix recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C.

4. IO did not call/inform any NGO for the counseling of the prosecutrix.

5. Since a juvenile was involved in the present case, SIR (Social Investigation Report) had to be prepared by a juvenile officer, which is lacking in the present case.

The above act on the part of ASI Jai Chand No.2407/D amounts to gross misconduct, negligence, dereliction in discharging his official duty and unbecoming of a police personnel, which renders him liable for departmental action was envisaged under the provision of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980."

6. Needless to state the charges stood proved.

7. Same submissions were urged before the Central Administrative Tribunal and noting as above, O.A. No.4189/2011 has been dismissed vide order dated May 18, 2012, and we note that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is withholding increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect.

8. With respect to the merits of the inquiry and the evidence led, no submissions have been made.

9. The writ petition is dismissed in limine but without any order as to costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(VEENA BIRBAL) JUDGE JANUARY 16, 2013//srb//