Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Police And Ors. vs Rajender Kishore Ojha on 16 July, 2015
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6348/2015
Date of judgment 16.07.2015
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC (Civil).
Versus
RAJENDER KISHORE OJHA ..... Respondent
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G. S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 18.11.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on an O.A. filed by the respondent with a prayer with following relief :
"(i) To quash and set aside impugned punishment order dated 08.01.2013 and appellate authority order dated 01.07.2013 with direction to the respondents to give all consequential benefits to the applicant.
(ii) To declare the action of the respondent in issuing show cause notice to the applicant for imposing punishment of censure as illegal and unjustified.
(iii) To award exemplary costs in favour of the applicant.
(iv) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case."
The necessary facts of this case as noticed by the Central Administrative Tribunal are that when the respondent was posted as Station House Officer (SHO), Khayala, he was served with a show cause notice dated 25.09.2012 wherein it was alleged that he had failed to supervise the working of his subordinates in as much as one Sub Inspector Kashmiri Lal conducted an investigation in FIR No. 386/2003 in a casual manner while he was posted at Police Station - Tilak Nagar.
Background which led to the issuance of the show cause notice was the observations passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts on the lapse of SI Kashmiri Lal as well as the failure on the part of the Supervisory Officer. The observations read as under :
"It is noted here that a case which revolves around forged documents was casually investigated. No sincere efforts were made to get the original documents. The superior officers failed to supervise the investigation and forwarded a bundle of papers before the Court of judicial determination."
Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 18.11.2014 is illegal and bad in law. Counsel contends that the Central Administrative Tribunal failed to appreciate that the respondent was the SHO of the Police Station and it was his responsibility to ensure that the matter was investigated in a proper manner. He submits that there was no delay in issuing the show cause notice as the show cause notice was issued only pursuant to the observations made by the trial court in its order dated 13.04.2012. He also contends that the lack of supervision on behalf of the respondent was misconduct and cannot be treated as negligence or error of judgment.
The stand of the respondent before the Tribunal was primarily two-fold. Firstly, the lapse, if any, could not be construed as misconduct. Moreover, more than 250 cases were pending at that point of time and it was not possible for him to have minutely looked into each case but the main accused was arrested along with three other accused persons who were part of the conspiracy to sell the property on the basis of forged documents but the forged documents could not be recovered. The second argument raised was the ground of delay as the incident pertained to the year 2002, case was registered in 2003 and show cause notice was issued after nine years of the incident i.e. on 25.09.2012. The Central Administrative Tribunal after taking into account the judgments of the Supreme Court with respect to the ground of inordinate delay, in the case of P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M. D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in JT 2005 (7) SC 417 and also in the case of M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India reported in JT 2006 (4) SC 469, reached the conclusion that the facts do not reveal the case of misconduct and at best it can be categorized as negligence.
We have heard Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully examined the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
In the case of Inspector Prem Chand Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors. reported in JT 2007 (5) SC 294, the Apex Court has defined what is misconduct. Para 12 of the judgment reads as under :
"Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake do not constitute such misconduct."
The facts of this case would reveal that the trial court had made an observation primarily on the lapse of SI Kashmiri Lal but the observation qua the respondent herein was lack of supervision which keeping in mind the facts of this case cannot be construed as misconduct.
With regard to the delay, it has been submitted before us by Mr. Khan that there was no delay as the observation was made by the trial court on 13.04.2012 and show cause notice was issued on 25.09.2012. While there is some force in the submission made by Mr. Khan but the fact remains that the incident was of year 2002 and the show cause notice was issued to the respondent after a period of nine years which would put the respondent to a definite disadvantage as it would be difficult for him to defend himself with regard to what transpired nine years before the show cause notice was issued.
In this backdrop, the Central Administrative Tribunal in our view has rightly reached the conclusion that in case of the respondent it can at best be categorized as a case of negligence or error of judgment and not misconduct per se.
After examining the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, we are of the view that this matter does not require any interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We find no ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JULY 16, 2015
sc
