RAGHURAJ SINGH Vs. DELHI POLICE THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to a departmental enquiry, Raghuraj Singh, an ASI in Delhi Police, the applicant herein, has been visited with the penalty of withholding/forfeiture of two years annual increment with cumulative effect, vide order dated 15.01.2011 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East District, Delhi, the disciplinary authority. The order aforesaid, in an appeal preferred by the applicant against the same, has since been confirmed vide order dated 14.06.2011 passed by Special Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range, the appellate authority. These are the two orders which have been challenged in this Original Application filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

(2.) Inasmuch as, the procedure adopted by the respondents in inflicting punishment upon the applicant would be in violation of rules as also principles of natural justice, and, therefore, while setting aside the impugned orders, the matter has to be remitted to the disciplinary authority, we may give only such facts as may be relatable to the procedural flaw committed by the respondents.

(3.) The applicant was put to departmental trial on the following charge: I, Inder Singh Dahiya EO/ACP Khajuri Khas charge you ASI Raghu Raj Singh No.1895/NE while posted at PP Harsh Vihar, you received a PCR call vide D.D. No.11 dated 23.7.07 at about 11.00 AM regarding theft of four gas cylinders and during enquiry it came to notice that the PCR Van B -9, staff intercepted the thieves and recovered four gas cylinders, but they had not deposited with local police till 24.7.07. You were asked from Constable Satyaveer Singh 1924/PCR (Chitha Munshi/NEZ/PCR) telephonically find and again to direct the above staff of B -9 to join the enquiry and return four gas cylinders as they had recovered from the thieves. When it came to notice of Inspector North -East Zone PCR through Constable Satyaveer Singh 1924/PCR, he asked SI Jaipal Singh to enquire the matter who on the information of the above staff of B -9 recovered four gas cylinders from two public person namely Rajender Singh S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal R/o H. No.85, Gali No.3 Mandoli Delhi and Jagpal S/o Shri Niyadar Singh R/o 8/320 Mandoli Delhi on 24.7.07, but in DE proceeding you turned hostile and stated that on 23.7.07 while posted at PP Harsh Vihar received a PCR call vide DD No.11 regarding theft of gas cylinder from Bakery Shop and owner told that four gas cylinders were short on this you asked that any theft happened give statement to register a case. The owner told that labour had given cylinders to their suppliers, he will inform after consulting with labour and will give his statement for register a case. After that owner himself came to PP and gave his written statement that no theft of cylinders was made, labour had given then for filling up and all were received back and the D.D. entry was filed on behalf of the statement. The above act on the part of you ASI Raghuraj Singh No.1895/NE amounts to gross misconduct, negligence and dereliction in the discharge of your official duties and mala fide intention which renders you liable to be dealt with departmental action under the provision of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. The enquiry officer in his report dated 18.06.2010 exonerated the applicant of the charge framed against him. The disciplinary authority, for the first time, while passing the impugned order, disagreed with the report of the enquiry officer while mentioning four reasons, and without putting the same to the applicant and having his representation against the same straightway passed an order of punishment, as mentioned above. The reasons mentioned by the disciplinary authority read, thus: 1. There was a PCR call regarding stealing of LPG Cylinder 22/23.07.2007. The call was confirmed and found true by the PCR vehicle MPV B -9. 2. On the same date, PCR MPV B -9 also intercepted the thieves and 04 LPG cylinders were recovered. 3. On PCR enquiry, it is prima facie proved that the PCR staff misappropriated the LPG cylinder and did not inform the local police about its recovery.