Joint Commissioner Of Police And ... vs Inspector Raj Singh
2016 Latest Caselaw 233 Del

$~16
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                         W.P.(C) 240/2016

                                    Date of decision: 12th January, 2016



JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS                       ... Petitioner
                          Through      Ms. Iram Majid, Advocate.

                          versus

INSPECTOR RAJ SINGH                                    ..... Respondent
                          Through

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI


SANJIV KHANNA, J.

This writ petition by the Government of NCT of Delhi impugns

order dated 27th May, 2015, passed by the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Principal Bench (Tribunal, for short) in OA No.3244 of 2013

quashing the penalty of 'censure' imposed on the respondent Inspector

Raj Singh.

2. We are aware and conscious that the Tribunal is not an appellate

forum that can substitute its opinion for that of the disciplinary

authorities, but this is a case wherein there was non-application of

mind to the relevant facts. The respondent's version in his response to

the show cause notice was not adverted to and given due

acknowledgment while imposing punishment of 'censure' and in the

appellate order confirming the said order.

3. The facts are not in dispute. The respondent-Inspector Raj

Singh was the SHO of police station Bawana. On 8th August, 2011,

FIR No.288/2011 was registered in the said police station on the

statement made by one Rajpal, that his wallet had been snatched by

two boys on a motorcycle and when he had tried to chase the culprits,

he was beaten up with a base ball bat. The FIR was registered under

Sections 356/379/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for

short).

4. The charge against the respondent Inspector Raj Singh was that

to minimize the gravity of offence, offence of robbery under Section

390 IPC was not included in the sections recorded in the FIR and this

amounts to gross misconduct, negligence, carelessness, irresponsible

attitude and dereliction in discharge of his official duties.

5. The defence of the respondent before the authorities was that he

was not the Investigating Officer. As an SHO, he had issued

instructions to the Investigating Officer to take steps and proceed in

accordance with law. Further, the relevant facts including the

statement of the complainant were brought to the notice of the seniors

and relevant Sections were invoked after seeking approval of the

Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bawana, Delhi. Another ground

raised by the respondent was that no action against ASI Raj Kumar,

the Investigating Officer was initiated and taken.

6. The FIR in question was registered on 8th August, 2011 and the

show cause notice was issued on 4th November, 2011 and the order

awarding penalty of 'censure' was passed on 23rd November, 2012. It

is palpable and apparent that during the course of investigation, the

Investigating Officer could have added other sections of IPC, if

another or more serious offence was made out. The Tribunal after

examining the relevant facts has reached the conclusion that in this

case punishment of 'censure' was not justified and necessary.

7. The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

JANUARY 12, 2016 NA/VKR