Delhi High Court
Mir Singh vs Govt. Of Nct & Ors. on 26 September, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 26.09.2014
% W.P.(C) 2349/2014 and C.M. No.4953/2014
MIR SINGH
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Parmod Bhardwaj, Advocate.
versus
GOVT OF NCT & ORS.
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman & Ms. Nikhita
Khetrapal, Advocates for respondents
No.1 to 3 along with ASI Rajiv
Yadav.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 26.04.2013 passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/ Tribunal) in O.A. No.1941/2012,
whereby the petitioner's Original Application was dismissed. The petitioner
also assails the show-cause notice dated 01.04.2010; the punishment order
dated 13.05.2010 passed by the DCP (North-West) and; the order dated
14.02.2010 dismissing the petitioner's departmental appeal against
imposition of the penalty of censure upon the petitioner.
W.P.(C.) No.2349/2014 Page 1 of 5
2. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Inspector (SHO),
Police Station Model Town, when he was issued a show-cause notice dated
01.04.2010 to explain why he should not be censured for gross misconduct,
negligence & lack of supervision in discharge of his official duties relating
to investigation of 31 cases. The petitioner sent his reply, and after
considering the same, the disciplinary authority issued the impugned order
dated 13.05.2010 imposing punishment of censure upon him. His
departmental appeal was rejected on 14.02.2010, which led to filing of the
aforesaid Original Application.
3. The petitioner did not dispute the fact that in respect of 31 cases
referred to in the said show-cause notice, action was not taken and they
became time barred. However, the explanation furnished by the petitioner
was that he had taken over the charge of Inspector (SHO), Police Station
Model Town only on 16.11.2007, by which time all the 31 cases referred to
in the said show-cause notice had already become barred by time. His
defence was that he was not responsible for the cases getting time barred and
no fault could be found with the conduct of the petitioner. He contended
that many of the Investigating Officers dealing with those cases had got
transferred to different police stations and taken the concerned files along
with them. He claimed that after he took over as Inspector (SHO), Police
Station Model Town, he had tried to contact the concerned Investigating
Officers for returning the files so that the challans could be filed in the Court
and this fact was brought to the notice of the higher authorities.
4. The Original Application was contested by the respondent, who stated
that the petitioner did not take any action for almost 6-7 months after taking
W.P.(C.) No.2349/2014 Page 2 of 5
over the charge as Inspector (SHO), Police Station Model Town in respect
of the said 31 cases.
5. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and perusing the record rejected
the application by holding as follows:
"6. We find that the applicant had taken over as SHO, Model
town on 16.11.2007, he does not seem have taken any action for
speeding up investigation of the 31 cases and filing challan in
the Court for almost 6/7 months. It was only on 05.05.2008
that he has brought to the notice of higher authorities that the
files concerning these cases were not traceable. Thus, for 6/7
months no action had been taken for filing these cases in the
Court. Records also do not reveal any effort on the part of the
applicant to seek condonation of delay from the Court. Thus, it
appears that there is no merit in the contention of the applicant
that as far as he was concerned he had taken timely action
regarding these cases.
7. The other ground taken by the applicant was that these
cases had already become time barred before his joining the
aforesaid police station. He has contended that the other
officers during whose tenure these cases should have been
expedited were not punished by the department. In our opinion,
this defence of the applicant is not acceptable. While the other
officials involved may or may not have been punished, this does
not absolve the applicant of the charge for which he has been
censured."
6. Before us as well, the submission of petitioner is the same, namely,
that the 31 cases in question had already become barred by limitation when
he took over charge as Inspector (SHO), Police Station Model Town. The
submission of the petitioner is that he has unnecessarily been targeted even
though he was not the Investigating Officer in respect of the said 31 cases.
W.P.(C.) No.2349/2014 Page 3 of 5
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the
attention of the Court to the appellate order dated 14.02.2010. Learned
counsel submits that the authorities were conscious of the fact that the 31
cases had become time barred before the petitioner took over the charge as
Inspector (SHO), Police Station Model Town. The appellate authority had
observed that the record did not reflect that any sincere effort was made on
behalf of the petitioner to get the cases put up in the Court by condoning the
delay. Learned counsel submits that this clearly shows that the petitioner
acted casually and negligently in the discharge of his duties since he did not
take any action in respect of the said 31 cases for over six months. Had the
respondent acted diligently, the challans would have been filed with
applications to seek condonation of delay. Learned counsel also submits
that action has also been taken against the other officers, who were the
Investigating Officers in these cases at the relevant time.
8. We have heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
including the impugned order. No doubt, the petitioner had joined as
Inspector (SHO), Police Station Model Town after the 31 cases in question
had become time barred, however, that by itself would not justify the failure
on behalf of the petitioner to take action for 6-7 months, as it was possible
for the petitioner to file the challans in the concerned court along with
applications to seek condonation of delay under Section 473 Cr.P.C.
However, he did not do so, for which there is no explanation. In these
circumstances, the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority, the
appellate authority and the Tribunal that the petitioner was guilty of
misconduct cannot be faulted. The penalty imposed is a minor penalty
W.P.(C.) No.2349/2014 Page 4 of 5
which cannot be said to be disproportionate to the misconduct found against
the petitioner.
9. For the above reasons, we find no ground to interfere with the order of
the Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
SEPTEMBER 26 , 2014
B.S. Rohella
