SHYAMDEV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the order of Delhi Administration passed on 30th July, 1979 (Annexure 'j') and the order of the Additional Commissioner of Police, Delhi passed on 22nd August, 1979 (Annexure K ). The order of the Delhi Administration directed holding of departmental enquiry against the petitioners (and some other police officers) and the officers of the excise department under R. 16. 42 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The enquiry was to be conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down by the C. C. S. (CCA) Rules, 1965. The order of the Additional Commissioner of Police purports to cancel the departmental proceedings held under R. 16. 38 (ii) ordered by him on 31st January, 1979. The main contention of the petitioners is that in the departmental proceedings held under R. 16. 38 (ii) of the Punjab Police Rules orders exonerating them were passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner on 12th July, 1979, and the second enquiry ordered by Delhi Administration arising out of the same transaction and on the same allegations, is bad in law.

(2.) ON 13/14th July, 1977, a tragedy took place within the limits of the police post Tank Road, Karol Bagh, in which 24 people died by consuming spurious liquor. The petitioner Sham Dev (Civil Writ Petition No. 1160/81) was working as an S. H. O. , Karol Bagh police station under which the police post Tank Road falls. Gyan Prakash, petitioner (Civil Writ Petition No. 1159 of 1981) was working as Sub-Inspector but was not working in the Tank Road, post area. He was under the transfer orders to join Janak Puri area. From 5th July, 1977 till 14th July, 1977, he was on the casual leave. He reported for duty on 15th July, 1977 and proceed on transfer to police station, Jankpuri on the same day. Sham Dev Inspector, Gyan Chand Sub-Inspector, Gyan Prakash Sub-Inspector and some other police officers were suspected of being responsible to the tragedy. Sham Dev and Gyan Chand were suspended on 14th July, 1977 and Gyan Prakash was suspended on 20th July, 1977. There was a great uproar in the city on the liquor tragedy and the questions were also asked in the Parliament. Shri V. K. Buggal, Additional District Magistrate, was appointed to enquire into the liquor tragedy. He submitted his report on 15th October, 1977. The A. D. M. found involvement of the said police officers in the tragedy. The A. D. M. has also referred to the earlier tragedy and suggested some steps to avoid recurrence of it in future. Thereafter, on 16th November, 1978, the petitioners were reinstated in the service.

(3.) AFTER their reinstatement the Additional Commissioner of Police decided to hold a departmental enquiry against the said police officials and passed an order on 3rd January, 1979 under R. 16. 38 (ii) of the Punjab Police Rules. Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police Om Prakash was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. In the statement of allegations the charge against Sham Dev was that as S. H. O. he failed to exert effective control over his subordinates as well as proper control over the persons who had been dealing in purchase and sale of illicit liquor in the area of police station Karol Bagh. He failed to take action when Sub-Inspector Gyan Chand requested him to supply additional force, so that steps could be taken to prevent the illicit liquor sale. He was thus negligent and remiss in the discharge of his official duties. The charge against petitioner Gyan Prakash was that the sale of spurious liquor was being done with the connivance of S. I. Gyan Prakash who was posted at P. S. Karol Bagh in those days. The conduct of S. I. Gyan Prakash made the subordinate staff also not to discharge their duties properly in stopping the sale of illicit liquor in the area and to check the occurrence of such crime. As against Sub-Inspector Gyan Chand, the charge was that he was posted as incharge Police post Tank Road in the jurisdiction of which police post 17 persons died due to the consumption of spurious liquor. The Sub-Inspector failed to stop the sale of spurious liquor in the jurisdiction of the police post where he was posted as Incharge. Thus, he was negligent and remiss in the discharge of his official duties.