SANJIV GUPTA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, DELHI SECRETARIAT, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sanjiv Gupta, an Inspector in Delhi Police, the applicant herein, has been visited with the penalty of censure vide order dated 10.03.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North -East District, Delhi, which has since been confirmed in appeal preferred by him, by the Special Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range, vide order dated 30.05.2011. These are the two orders which are under challenge in the present Original Application filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

(2.) Brief facts of the case reveal that a show cause notice for censure came to be issued to the applicant on 20.01.2011 for his alleged grave misconduct, negligence, carelessness and dereliction in discharge of official duties, in that on perusal of case FIR No.265/10 dated 21.12.2010 u/s 379 PS Seelam Pur, it came to be observed that the occurrence of theft of a motorcycle took place on 24.08.2010 and was reported in the police station on the same day, but the case was registered on 21.12.2010, i.e., after lapse of about four months, without giving any reason, which would not be acceptable and feasible besides not being realistic. It was stated to be a clear cut violation of instructions issued by senior officers as regards registration and investigation of cases.

(3.) Prior to issuance of the show cause notice, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East District, on 24.12.2010 called for explanation of the applicant on the allegations as mentioned above, which, it is the case of the applicant, was received by him on 21.01.2011. On the date aforesaid, i.e., 21.01.2011, the show cause notice was also given to the applicant. The applicant gave his reply to the explanation, but the same was returned stating that the show cause notice had already been issued. It may be recalled that the show cause notice came to be issued to the applicant on the same day, i.e., 21.01.2011. The applicant submitted reply to the show cause notice also on 28.02.2011. The plea raised by the applicant in his defence was that he was working as SHO, PS Seelam Pur at the relevant time. Information with regard to theft of one motorcycle with incomplete particulars was received in the police station, which was entered as DD entry No.39A and the same was marked to SI Manoj Kumar for further action. Since the particulars, like engine and chasis number were not provided by the complainant, and even the registration number of the motorcycle was not complete, SI Manoj Kumar insisted upon the complainant for providing the same, as in the absence of the aforesaid particulars, FIR could not be registered. However, the complainant submitted in writing that he did not want to pursue the case and that further information would be provided as soon as the same may be available. On extra efforts put in by the applicant, the complainant provided the particulars of the motorcycle on 21.12.2010, and on the same day FIR was registered. The notice issued to the applicant was confirmed and his conduct, as mentioned above, came to be censured. It does not appear that the disciplinary authority may have discussed the defence projected by the applicant and rejected it by a process of reasoning. The relevant part of the order passed by the disciplinary authority reads as follows: The show cause notice for censure was served upon him. He has submitted his written reply in response to the show cause notice for censure. I have perused the reply submitted by Inspr. Sanjeev Gupta, No.D -I/827 and heard in orderly room on 08.03.2011. He stated that due to non -cooperation, non -interest & no furnishing of requisite information, FIR could not be lodged but later on after 03 months 27 days, FIR was lodged on 21.12 2010. By way of sequence of events, facts are evident. The complaint of M.V. theft was registered after 04 months that itself shows that the complainant was very much interested in lodging FIR. But he was not properly distended. It is not out of place to mention that old Motor cycles are used in criminal activities and terrorist related activities. Unless proper FIR is not registered in time, no legal action would be initiated to search that vehicle. There are ample directions from all quarters including worthy C.P. Delhi. But this case of delayed registration shows total disobedience & defiance of all the directions. Hence, I have no ground to take a lenient view. Therefore, show cause notice for censure issued to Inspr. Sanjeev Gupta, No.D -I/827 is confirmed and his conduct is censured. The facts of the case further reveal that the ACP called for explanation of SI Manoj Kumar on 31.12.2010 on the same allegations. It is the case of the applicant that SI Manoj Kumar submitted his reply on the same lines as was the case of the applicant projected in his reply to the show cause notice. The proceedings against Manoj Kumar are stated to have been dropped by giving him only a warning. When this fact became known to the applicant, he referred to the same in his appeal that he preferred against the order dated 10.03.2011 passed by the disciplinary authority, but the appellate authority would not even make a mention of the same, least discussing and opining on the same. Relevant part of the order passed by the appellate authority, reads thus: Following the appeal, I have head the appellant in O.R. He has nothing to say in addition to what he has already submitted in his appeal. I have also gone through the appeal preferred by the appellant and the other file records and found that he has no justification for three months delay despite CPs specific instructions. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the disciplinary authority. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.