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

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ved Bhushan, an Inspector in Delhi Police, the applicant herein,, vide order dated 31.01.2011 has been censured. The appeal carried by him against the order aforesaid has since been rejected vide order dated 11.07.2011.It is against these two orders that the present Original Application has been filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

(2.) The applicant was issued a show cause notice for censure on the allegations that while he was posted in East District as SHO/Welcome, a complaint was received from one Mohd. Aftab Alam, alleging that he along with one Mohd. Iqbal and Mohd. Mahzoob consumed liquor at Seemapuri Border, and after some time he realized that something had been mixed in the liquor as he started losing consciousness. The complainant further alleged that he took a TSR and reached Metro Welcome Station, where Mohd. Iqbal & Mohd. Mahzoob tried to gag him, and he became unconscious. On regaining consciousness, he discovered that Rs.9500/ -, one Nokia mobile and other documents were missing from his pocket. Next day, Mohd. Iqbal was apprehended and the local police of PP Seelampur handed him over to PS Welcome, from where he was set free without taking any action. On the complaint aforesaid, an enquiry was got conducted by ACP/PG Cell, North -East District, and it emerged that Mohd. Iqbal and Mohd. Mahzoob intoxicated the complainant on 05.11.2005 at about 05.30 p.m. at Apsara Border, UP and on their way beck to Seelampur, stole his cash and mobile phone. The applicant, then SHO/Welcome, being supervisory officer, was alleged to have failed to properly supervise the functioning of the police station and take legal action against the alleged persons.

(3.) The applicant responded to the show cause notice, wherein he pleaded that on 05.11.2005, SI Raj Kumar (since retired) had received a complaint from Mohd. Aftab Alam from PP Seelampur with the allegations as referred to above. During enquiry, it revealed that the complainant Mohd. Aftab Alam & the accused persons, namely, Mohd. Iqbal and Mohd. Mahzoob belonged to the same village in Bihar, and that both parties had personal enmity at their native place, and Mohd. Aftab Alam wanted to settle scores by registering a case against them in Delhi. It further revealed that both parties were in the same profession and known to each other, and that on that day they all went to consume liquor at UP Border at their own will. The complainant was also got medically examined. It was also revealed that Mohd. Aftab Alam, the complainant, had not paid salary of his employees on the festival of Id and had also not paid the bills of tea shopwala and his landlord, and that he had closed his factory and concealed himself in the area of Kanti Nagar, and made the complaint to pressurize his rival party in the village as some litigation was going on in courts in Bihar. The enquiry officer concluded that no cognizable offence was made out. Later on, the complainant surfaced at his own. An enquiry was conducted by ASI Chander of PG Cell/NED in the matter and a report was sent on 02.06.2007.Later, the applicant was transferred from PS Welcome on 08.05.2006 and no case was registered in the matter. The explanation given by the applicant was not found to be satisfactory, and, therefore, the disciplinary authority, while confirming the show cause notice, observed as follows: In the meantime, Inspr. Ved Bhushan Sharma, No.D -I/880, the then SHO/Welcome transferred as SHO/Shakarpur and thereafter from East Distt. to Security Unit and from Security Unit to this Distt. Hence, the matter has been received in this Distt. for taking further necessary action being present disciplinary authority under rule 14.4 of Delhi Police (P&A) Rules 1980.However, I have carefully gone through the relevant file, reply submitted by Inspr. Ved Bhushan Sharma, No.D -I/880, the then SHO/Welcome as well as heard him in orderly room on 06.01.2011.During orderly room, he has taken a plea that allegations were not substantiated against second suspect Iqbal hence, he was set free. However, it is clear that as per ACP/PG Cell/NE report there was involvement of both the persons. Hence, the pleas taken by Inspr. Ved Bhushan Sharma, No.D -I/880, the then SHO/Welcome (Now SHO/Model Town) in his written as well as oral submission is not found to be satisfactory. In view of above, the show cause notice issued to Inspr. Ved Bhushan Sharma, No.D -I/880, the then SHO/Welcome is confirmed. As such his conduct is hereby censured for the above said lapse. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 11.07.2011, relevant part whereof reads as follows: Inspr. Ved Bhushan, No.D -I/880, the appellant was heard in Orderly Room. He pleaded that he wants to submit supplementary statement in support of his submission made earlier in the appeal. In the interest of natural justice, he was afforded an opportunity for the same. However, in his supplementary statement, he has not stated anything new and specific in his defence. He has only tried to shift his responsibility in order to cover up inaction on his part. The enquiry by PG Cell has established beyond doubt that complainant was drugged, his cash and mobile phone were stolen by the alleged person against whom PS Welcome failed to initiate action and kept matter pending without any cogent reason. I find no reason to interfere with the order of Disciplinary Authority, which is a detailed and speaking order. Hence, the appeal is rejected.