Devender Kumar vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And Anr

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a joint departmental enquiry was initiated against the applicant ASI Devender Kumar along with 4 others on the allegation that on 2.3.2012 while they were detailed for conducting high jump event of candidates for recruitment to the post of Constable (Exe) in Delhi Police-2011 they provided 4 chances to two of the candidates as against the stipulated three. A preliminary enquiry in this regard was conducted by the Addl DCP/EOW in which the negligence and irresponsibility of these police officials was held to be proved, as also corroborated by the CCTV footage. The findings of the preliminary enquiry was entrusted to the DCP (security) who served a copy of summary of allegations and other documents to the applicant on 13.9.2012.

The applicant along with others did not admit the allegation and preferred to face the DE proceedings. The applicant states that the enquiry officer wrongly and illegally concluded that the charges served upon the applicant are proved. The Disciplinary Authority without considering the representation and defence of the applicant vide order dated 12.09.2013 awarded punishment of censure to the applicant. The appeal against this order was also confirmed by the appellate authority on 11.01.2013 without considering the legal points raised by the applicant. Resultantly, the applicant has been found unfit for the post of SI vide order dated 15.10.2015, due to the punishment of „Censure" awarded to the applicant.

The applicant further avers that none of the witnesses in their statements recorded even a single word against the applicant or assigned any negative roll to him in the entire test. The respondents in their findings of guilt have not pin-pointed as to what allegation is proved and as to how each individual was found negligent in performing his duties. The entire team has been held responsible without discussing and taking into consideration defence statement of the applicant (and others). The entire team has been coloured black with one stroke of pen, arbitrarily.

The applicant submits that at best, the negligence that can only be attributed to Inspector Promod Kumar who was in charge of the event and hence accountable for the fourth chance wrongly availed by the aspiring candidates. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed the OA, seeking following reliefs:

"1. To quash and set aside the impugned findings, order of punishment dated 12.09.2013 and Appellate Order dt.11.1.2016 with all consequential benefits.

To award costs in favor of the applicant and pass any order or orders which this Hon"ble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of this case."

The applicant has relied upon the decision of Hon"ble Apex Court in the case of Inspector Prem Chand Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2007(4) SCC 566, at page 572, wherein it has been held that:

"misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of neglignece, errors of judgment of innocent mistaken, do not constitute such misconduct."

The applicant has also relied upon OA1484/2009 decided on 11.12.2009 to support his contention that punishment should not be meted out in matters of negligence.

The respondents in their counter affidavit concur that the applicant along with three others was detailed in Ground No.3 for conducting high jump trials for recruitment of candidates for the post of Constable (Exe) in Delhi Police, 2011. The allegation against the applicant and others is that they provided four chances to two candidates namely, Inder Saini, S/o Pasari Saini and Raj Kumar, S/o Bajrang Lal (Chest No.27), whereas as per standing order No.212/11 each candidate was eligible for three attempts only. The applicant and others did not plead guilty and preferred to produce DW Shri Raj Kumar who was examined by the Enquiry Officer (EO). The EO took into consideration the CCTV footage and submitted his findings concluding that the charges against the applicant and others are substantiated. The representation of the applicant and others, with reference to statement of defence witness and findings of the EO were examined. The applicant was found guilty of the charges framed.

In the defence statement, the applicant stated that the candidate Inder Saini had taken off the chest number after first attempt and was provided the fourth chance in some confusion. He qualified the high jump in the fourth chance in physical endurance test. The other candidate Raj Kumar had not qualified the high jump, but he availed of the fourth chance of his own. On both counts the applicant pleaded that he had no role to play.

However, in the PE report, it has been concluded that as per CCTV footage the staff present on the spot, allowed the aforementioned two candidates to take the fourth attempt in high jump event and did not take any steps to prevent the same. The allegations against the applicant and others for providing fourth chance to two candidates are thus proved due to their negligent & irresponsible behaviour.

The allegations levelled against the applicant and others is for providing fourth chance to two candidate. The incident or misdemeanour of the team was brought to the knowledge of CCTV incharge by the monitoring staff at CCTV Control Room, who, after satisfying himself, brought the matter to the knowledge of his seniors.

The applicant has tried to minimize the lapse by stating that he was not directly involved in the entire process and was busy in assisting the candidates for filing up forms etc. This plea of the applicant is not convincing. He along with others had attended the briefings given by the respondents in this regard on various occasions. The instructions/standing order were provided to the staff (at the level of Inspector) and they were explained the rules to be followed while conducting these events. Despite their presence on the field, two candidates got an extra chance (fourth) showing that the applicant (and others) executed their duties in a casual manner and failed to follow the guidelines (in this regard) meticulously. There is no allegation of any connivance on part of the applicant with the delinquent candidates who availed of the fourth attempt. Be that as it may, this episode had not been captured on the CCTV, one of the candidates (Inder Raj Son) might have got away with it - finding a wrongful entry into a Govt. job, at the expense of many others. Being a govt. servant, the applicant cannot absolve himself of the responsibility of the blunder committed by him (& his colleagues) - which fortunately was averted due to alert and vigilant monitoring of the monitoring staff of CCTV Control Room.

In view of these facts, the OA filed by the applicant is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.