INSPECTOR VED BHUSHAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ved Bhushan, an Inspector in Delhi Police, the applicant herein, has been visited with the penalty of censure vide order dated 31.01.2011 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, North -West District, Delhi. The said order has since been confirmed in appeal preferred by the applicant by Joint Commissioner of Police, Northern Range, Delhi, vide order dated 16.07.2011. These are the orders that have been challenged by the applicant in this Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

(2.) Brief facts of the case culminating into the orders aforesaid reveal that a show cause notice dated 23.03.2010 came to be issued to the applicant alleging that while posted in East District as SHO/Shakarpur (now SHO/Model Town), he committed grave misconduct, negligence, inaction as well as dereliction in the discharge of his official duties, inasmuch as on 09.02.2010, SHO/Mandawali and ACP/Madhu Vihar sent two DD entries No. 34 -A dated 03.02.2010 and 22 -A dated 07.02.2010, and MLC CR No.9954 along with other relevant papers to him for taking necessary action regarding admission of one minor girl, resident of Chander Vihar, Mandawali in Hedgewar Hospital in a pregnant condition. In her statement, the girl stated that two unknown boys had raped her at Jagat Ram Park, Lakshmi Nagar seven months back, but she did not disclose the incident to her parents. The applicant allegedly did not take any action in the matter, and after eleven days, i.e., on 20.02.2010, only submitted a report to ACP/Preet Vihar to return the report to SHO/Mandawali because the place of occurrence could not be properly verified.

(3.) The applicant responded to the show cause notice aforesaid vide his reply wherein he mentioned that on 11.02.2010, DD Nos.34 -A dated 03.02.2010 and 22 -A dated 07.02.2010, MLC CR No.9954 along with report of SHO/Mandawali forwarded by ACP/Madhu Vihar was received as PS Shakarpur vide diary No.470 dated 11.02.2010. ASI Jai Pal Sharma to whom the documents were marked for making enquiry into the same, conducted an enquiry into the matter and verified the facts as mentioned in the complaint from the area. He also made efforts to contact the prosecutrix/complainant, but she was not available. The applicant stated that as there were ambiguities in the statement of the prosecutrix/complainant given to Mandawali police, as soon as she was contacted, W/SI Jyoti enquired the matter from her, but in her statement she nowhere alleged that anything had happened in the area of Shakarpur. Her detailed statement was got recorded by W/SI Jyoti and the outcome of the enquiry was informed to ACP/Preet Vihar on 20.02.2010, which was forwarded to senior officers. The applicant further stated that had the said case been registered at his police station, it could have been fatal to the investigation, and many questions could be raised during trial of the case and the defence would have got opportunity to demolish the prosecution case. In the present case registered at PS Mandawali Fazalpur on the statement of prosecutrix/complainant vide FIR o.89/10 u/s 363/376 IPC, it was nowhere established or stated by her that any incident took place in the area of PS Shakarpur, and all pre -registration investigations were got conducted by Mandawali Police. He further stated that as per orders of DCP/East circulated in such matters, the said case was to be got registered at PS Mandawali Fazalpur, but contrary to this, it was sent to PS Shakarpur. The disciplinary authority, after referring to the facts as mentioned above, and simply mentioning that the applicant had been transferred from East District to Security Unit, and thereafter to North -West District, and, therefore, the matter had been received in the said District for taking further necessary action, observed as follows: However, I have carefully gone through the relevant file, reply submitted by Inspr. Ved Bhushan Sharma, No.D -1/880, the then SHO/Shakarpur (now SHO/Model Town) as well as heard him in orderly room on 06.01.2011. During orderly room, he had taken the same pleas whatever he had already submitted in the written reply to the show cause notice for censure issued to him. The pleas taken by Inspr. Ved Bhushan Sharma, No.d -1/880, the then SHO/Shakarpur (now SHO/Model Town) in his written as well as oral submissions are not found to be satisfactory. Therefore, the show cause notice issued to Inspr. Ved Bhushan Sharma, No.d -1/880, the then SHO/Shakarpur (now SHO/Model Town) is confirmed. As such his conduct is hereby censured for the above said lapse. The appellate authority, after referring to the basic facts of the case as contained in the notice, did not even mention the contents of the reply given by the applicant. The said authority, however, mentioned that the applicant had requested to submit a supplementary statement in support of his defence, and that in the interest of natural justice he was afforded opportunity to do so, in which he submitted that he had kept the ACP informed at each step and the matter was finally routed through the then DCP/East District. The appellate authority mentioned that even this matter was discussed in the District Crime Review Meeting and as such, all facts were in the notice of senior officers. Just mentioning as to what was said by the applicant in his supplementary statement, the appellate authority proceeded to confirm the order passed by the disciplinary authority, by observing as follows: I have gone through the records/documents on file and written submissions of the appellant. In absence of any record available to support the fresh submission, it is difficult to believe and take it on record. Even if the same is accepted it makes all concerned accountable for misconduct and the appellant, the then SHO/Mandawali cannot escape from his responsibility. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of Disciplinary Authority. Hence, the appeal is rejected.