AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J
The applicant was appointed as a Constable in Delhi Police in the year 1990 and thereafter was promoted as Head Constable. While working in the Police Station Paschim Vihar in the year 2006, he was kept in-charge of the malkhana. A charge memo dated 05.07.2016 was issued to him and Sub Inspector (SI), by name Manoj Sharma, stated that the SI was entrusted with an investigation into a complaint submitted by one Mr. Krishan Kumar Chawla, alleging that the accused mentioned by him, demanded ransom of Rs.5 lakhs, he recorded the conversation in CD, he handed over a CD and an FIR No.44/06 was registered. It was mentioned that the court that dealt with the matter found that the CD was not properly preserved and a valuable piece of evidence was lost and thereby the accused had to be acquitted. Thus, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them.
The applicant and the S.I. submitted their explanations, denying the charge. The Inquiry Officer (IO) submitted a report on 05.07.2016, holding the charge against the applicant as 'proved'. A copy of the report was made available to the applicant and on consideration of the same, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) passed an order dated 26.09.2016, imposing the punishment of withholding of one increment temporarily for a period of one year against the applicant, whereas punishment of forfeiture of two years' approved service was imposed on the SI. The applicant filed this OA, challenging the order of punishment.
The applicant contends that he was not at all responsible to preserve the CD and the principal responsibility was that of the SI. It is also stated that the complaint about the destruction or damage of the CD emerged long after he was transferred to a different Police Station and the evidence of PW-4 was clear in this behalf and that the finding recorded against him as well as the punishment imposed cannot be sustained in law.
The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is stated that being the in-charge of malkhana, the applicant, was under obligation to preserve the CD, which is an important piece of evidence and on account of his negligence, the CD was broken into pieces and thereby prosecution suffered a serious detriment.
Today, we heard Mr. U. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel for the respondents.
The charge against the applicant was that he did not preserve the CD, referable to FIR No.44/06, properly and on account of that, a valuable piece of evidence was lost. The investigation was entrusted to SI and the role of the applicant was confined to the one preserving the CD. However, when the time came for proof of the CD, it was noticed that it was broken into pieces. It may be true that the applicant was transferred to a different police station, by that time. However, the person, who took the charge from the applicant, i.e. PW-4, clearly stated that he found the CD in broken condition. Therefore, the responsibility was clearly that of the applicant. The disciplinary proceeding has to be initiated in the light of the observations made by the court, which tried the case.
The finding of the IO was based on clear and understandable evidence and the punishment imposed against the applicant is also that serious in nature. We do not find any base to interfere with the same.
The OA is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.