DHARAMPAL SINGH Vs. GOVT. OF NCT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 9.8.2011 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby OA No. 365/2011, filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) An incident of snatching took place in Green Park Extension on 1.2.2008. An FIR being FIR No.58/08 under Section 356/379 of Indian Penal Code was registered at PS Hauz Khas, with respect to the aforesaid incident. The petitioner was the Investigating Officer of the aforesaid case. On 28.3.2008, an information was received at PS Hauz Khas that 03 persons, who had been arrested under Section 41(1) of Cr.P.C., had made disclosures, in respect of the crime which was the subject matter of FIR No.58/08 of the said police station. The petitioner was directed by SHO, PS Hauz Khas to apply for production warrant of the accused persons. Accordingly, the accused persons were summoned for 1.4.2008 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi through production warrant. It is alleged that the petitioner was instructed by SHO and Inspector (Law & Order) to move an application for interrogation of the accused and then interrogate them in detail, record their disclosure statements and move an application for their Test Identification Parade (TIP) so that after TIP, police custody remand of the accused could be obtained. It is also alleged that instead of doing so, the petitioner, after arresting the accused persons, moved an application for their discharge. Accordingly, all the 03 accused were released by the Court on his request.

(3.) The Inquiry Officer vide his report dated 1.9.2009 held the charge proved to the extent that the petitioner did not move an application for the judicial TIP of the accused persons and got them discharged on the same day. He also observed that the petitioner did not make any efforts to trace the stolen articles. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the report of the Inquiry Officer and material on record concluded that the petitioner had failed to execute the directions given by his seniors and instead of seeking "production remand" of the accused persons, he moved an application for their discharge. It was also concluded by the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner did not apply for judicial TIP, despite specific instructions from the SHO. The Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of withholding the next increment of the petitioner for a period of 02 years without cumulative effect. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected. The Appellate Authority observed that the petitioner had been instructed to move an application for TIP of the accused persons so that after conducting TIP police remand could be obtained but the petitioner moved an application of his own seeking their discharge. The Appellate Authority held that the petitioner did not comply with the lawful directions of a senior officer and spoiled the investigation with ulterior motives.