Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Police And Ors. vs Shri Kapil Kumar Meena on 4 February, 2019
$~14.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 04.02.2019
% W.P.(C.) No. 10772/2017
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Satyakam, Additional Standing
Counsel along with HC Rakesh
Kumar.
versus
SHRI KAPIL KUMAR MEENA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja & Mr. Sambit
Nanda, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)
1. The Commissioner of Police has preferred the present writ petition to
assail the order dated 13.12.2016 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal (CAT/ Tribunal) in O.A. No.2705/2011. The Tribunal has allowed
the said Original Application preferred by the respondent; quashed the
orders impugned before it by the respondent; and directed grant of
consequential benefits to the respondent. However, it was held that the
respondent would not be entitled to any arrears of pay.
2. The respondent was appointed as a Constable (Driver) with the Delhi
Police on 01.11.2006. His services were confirmed on 01.11.2008. He was
placed under suspension with effect from 18.12.2009 on the ground that he
suppressed the fact that he was involved in case FIR No.506/2003 registered
under Section 365 IPC at P.S. R.K. Puram. On the charge that he had
suppressed his involvement in the said case as an accused, he was
chargesheeted on 17.02.2010. A departmental inquiry followed and the
Inquiry Officer exonerated him on the ground that though the aforesaid FIR
was registered against him, he was never served with the copy of the same
and, therefore, it could not be concluded that he was aware about his being
named as an accused in the FIR. The Disciplinary Authority, however, did
not agree with this finding of the Inquiry Officer and issued a disagreement
note on 28.09.2010. The respondent was called upon to make his
representation which he did on 05.10.2010. Thereafter, the Disciplinary
Authority passed the order dated 25.10.2010 dismissing the respondent from
service. The statutory appeal preferred by the respondent was rejected on
26.05.2011.
3. The plea taken by the respondent before the Tribunal was that, since
he had not been served with the copy of the FIR; that he was never arrested,
and; that no chargesheet was ever filed against him - arising out of the said
FIR, he bonafidely and innocently answered the query: whether any FIR was
ever registered against him, by answering the same in the negative.
4. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that
the petitioner was fully aware of his involvement in the said case. He was
thoroughly and repeatedly interrogated in the said case and even his
polygraph test was got conducted before he had filled up the declaration on
04.05.2006. Thus, for him to claim that he was not aware of the registration
of the FIR and that he was named as an accused in the FIR, was incorrect.
5. The Tribunal while passing the impugned order has taken the view
that knowledge of the fact of registration of the FIR against him cannot be
attributed to the respondent, since he was not served with the copy of the
FIR and no chargesheet had been filed in Court till the time he made the
declaration.
6. We are afraid that we cannot accept this reasoning of the Tribunal.
There is ample material placed on record to show that the respondent was
repeatedly called for interrogation. The notices issued to him squarely
mention the particulars of the FIR registered in the case. He was
interrogated and his polygraph tests were also got conducted. One would
have to be too naive to accept the respondents claim that he was unaware of
the fact that he was an accused named in the FIR. Thus, clearly, there was
suppression and misstatement in the declaration made by the respondent
when he answered the question in the negative, as to whether any FIR had
been registered against him.
7. Having said that, considering the fact that the closure report was filed
by the police in the said case, which is still pending consideration and no
chargesheet has yet been filed, and also the fact that the petitioner is not able
to point out on the basis of the interrogation conducted thus far that there is
any material to point to the involvement of the respondent in the said case,
as also the fact that the Tribunal has restricted the relief by ordering that the
respondent shall not be entitled to any arrears, we are not inclined to
interfere with the direction issued by the Tribunal that the respondent should
be reinstated in service. Considering the circumstances of the case, we
direct that the period of the respondent's absence from duty, i.e. from the
date of his dismissal till the date of his reinstatement should be treated as
"dies non" for all intents and purposes. The respondent shall, however, be
reinstated in service within the next 30 days.
8. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
FEBRUARY 04, 2019
B.S. Rohella
