Arun Kumar Sharma vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors

The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-

"8.1 Quash and set aside the impugned Appellate Order No. F.XVI/59/2013/659-60/CR-I/PHQ, dated 13.01.2016.

8.2 Quash and set aside the impugned Punishment Order No. 5251-65/P.Cell(Vig.) P-I, dated 22.06.2009.

8.3 Quash and set aside the impugned Finding dated nil.

8.4 Quash and set aside the impugned Order No.3676-99/P.Cell (Vig.)/P-I, dated 17.04.2008

8.5 Direct the respondents to give all consequential benefits including promotion to the applicant.

8.6 Cost of the petition may be also awarded to the applicant.

8.7 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents."

Briefly the facts of the case are as follows:

2.1 The applicant joined Delhi Police as SI (Exe) in the year 1990. In the year 2007 when he was posted as Station House Officer (SHO) Kashmere Gate, he attended elementary French language classes between 07.30 A.M. to 09.30 A.M on Tuesdays and Fridays between May and August 2007. On 17.04.2008, the respondents initiated a departmental enquiry against the applicant on two charges. The substance of which is:

(a) Attending French classes between 07.30 A.M. to 09.30 A.M. on Tuesdays and Fridays between May and August 2007 without obtaining permission from the competent authority and without intimating the department;

(b) Failing to hold roll calls between 8 AM and 9 AM on Tuesdays and Fridays between May and August, 2007 in violation of S.O. No. 266 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi vide order dated 24.10.88.

2.2 Thereafter enquiry was conducted in which the charges against the applicant were found to be proved and a copy of findings was given to the applicant for submitting his representation. He submitted his representation and was also heard in person. Thereafter, taking all the material into consideration the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of censure upon him vide order dated 22.06.2009. A copy of the order was provided to the applicant and he was given an opportunity to file an appeal against this order to the Commissioner of Police within thirty days of the date of its receipt.

2.3 The applicant thereafter submitted his appeal against the said order which was rejected vide order dated 13.01.2016 by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. While rejecting the appeal it was noted that the misconduct committed by the appellant (applicant in this OA) was grave in nature and a lenient view has already been taken by the disciplinary authority in awarding the punishment of censure.

Shri Piyush Gaur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the applicant had not committed any violation of S.O. No.266 and contended that it is not possible for an SHO to hold roll calls in between 8 AM to 9 AM everyday and that he had missed many of his French classes and remained on duty.

Shri K.M. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the applicant had violated both the directions given in S.O. No.266 as also Rule-3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. While arguing, learned counsel also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India & Others [1996 SCC (L&S) 80].

I have carefully gone through the pleadings on record and arguments advanced by the two sides. The applicant was posted in a responsible position as SHO and hence was expected to sincerely shoulder the responsibilities entrusted to him. For an officer in such a position to absent himself repeatedly without permission or even intimation to his superiors in the hierarchy of a disciplined force does not fall in the category of acceptable conduct.

The respondents before awarding any punishment duly conducted an enquiry giving full opportunity to the applicant to present his case including the opportunity to represent, be heard and to appeal. I find that there is nothing lacking in the process. Through the process of enquiry, the charges against the applicant stand proved. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi (supra), the scope of interference by this Tribunal is limited and as such I cannot go into the correctness of facts. The general principles relating to an enquiry appear to be in order. In the present case, I find no fault in the process followed and the conclusions reached.

For the reasons stated above, the present OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.