RAJINDER KHATRI Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.2.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby OA No. 2191/2010 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts giving rise to the filing of the OA can be summarized as under:

(2.) ONE Mr Yameen complained to Joint Commissioner of Police that on 28/29.1.2005, he was dispossessed from a plot which he owned and occupied in village Burari and that his complaints to the local police had yielded no result. On an inquiry conducted by DCP, it was found that the complainant was in possession of the aforesaid plot till 28.1.2005. It was also revealed during inquiry that the petitioner Sub-Inspector Rajinder Khatri, who was in-charge of Police Post, Burari and Inspector Bir Singh, SHO, Police Station Timar Pur, were prima facie involved in facilitating the dispossession of the complainant from the aforesaid property. Two other police officials, namely, Head Constable Virender Singh and Head Constable Mahabir Singh were also found prima facie guilty in the matter. A departmental inquiry was, therefore, held against four police officials, i.e. the petitioner, Inspector Bir Singh, Head Constable Virender Singh and Head Constable Mahabir Singh. After inquiry, penalty of forfeiture of one year 's approved service temporarily entailing proportionate reduction in pay for a period of one year was awarded to the petitioner. Same penalty was awarded to the Head Constables. Inspector Bir Singh was, however, let off after giving warning to him on the ground that he was going to retire from service next year. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(3.) IT is an admitted position that the petitioner was the in-charge of the Police Post Burari when the complainant Yameen was dispossessed from the plot measuring 850 square yards in Khasra No. 519, Burari Garhi, Delhi, occupied by him in village Burari. Admittedly, the area within the jurisdiction of Police Station Timar Pur was much larger than the area within the jurisdiction of Police Post Burari though it did include the area under the jurisdiction of the Police Post. It can thus be hardly disputed that being in-charge of the Police Post, the petitioner was nearer to the place of incident as compared to Police Station Timar Pur. The Police Post being nearer to the place of incident, the complainant obviously must have first approached the Police post for lodging complaint, besides calling Police Control Room. Therefore, primarily it was for the petitioner, he being in-charge of Police Post Burari, to initiate appropriate legal action on the complaint of Shri Yameen. The role of SHO Police Station Timar Pur which was more of a supervisory role comes later and in fact there would have been no occasion for the complainant to approach the SHO, had the petitioner, being in-charge of the Police Post taken prompt action on receipt of complaint from him. Therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the degree of delinquency on the part of the petitioner was the same as on the part of the Inspector Bir Singh. Being in-charge of the Police Post, the petitioner was the first point of contact for the complainant and, therefore, the degree of negligence/misconduct on the part of the petitioner would also be more, though it cannot be disputed that the SHO also would be responsible in the matter since he also did not take any action despite coming to know of the incident.