Ram Kanwar vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Others

L Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant is working as ASI in the NCT of Delhi. On 11.06.2017 an emergency situation in PS, Nandnagari was taken note of. The applicant was deployed as an emergency officer and he was issued a pistol and 5 live cartridges. After reaching that place, the applicant informed the superiors that somebody has stolen his pistol and the 5 live cartridges. Thereafter efforts were made and ultimately the pistol and cartridges were recovered.

The applicant was placed under suspension. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant for being careless in handling and possessing the weapon. In accordance with the procedure, prescribed under the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, the enquiry officer was appointed and he in turn framed a charge. The charge framed against the applicant was held proved. Taking the same into account the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 18.04.2018 imposing the punishment of reduction of pay from Rs.41,600/- p.m. to Rs.40,600/-, with immediate effect. The period of suspension was directed to be treated as spent on duty for all purposes.

Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the applicant availed the remedy of appeal. That was partly allowed and the punishment was modified to that of forfeiture of one year of approved service, temporarily.

This OA is filed challenging the order of punishment, as modified by the Appellate Authority.

Sri Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant submits that despite the applicant being careful and cautious, someone in the crowd has stolen the weapon. And that it cannot be said that there was any carelessness or lack of proper vigilance, on his part. He contends that the pistol was recovered within a short time and no loss whatever can be said to have occurred to the department. He submits that the punishment awarded to the applicant is disproportionate to the charges.

Ms.Esha Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the very fact that the applicant lost the pistol, discloses that the purpose of his being deployed to control the crowd was defeated. She contends that loosing the custody and possession of a weapon constitutes a serious dereliction and carelessness on the part of a police official and the charge framed against the applicant was proved beyond any pale of doubt. She contends that the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment which itself is not so serious and even that was modified to the advantage of the applicant by the Appellate Authority.

The undisputed facts are that the applicant was sent on duty as an emergency officer, to control the crowd. Anticipating troubles and violence, the concerned authority has handed over a pistol and 5 cartridges to the applicant. The very purpose of issuing a pistol to the applicant was to use it, if the situation warranted and at any rate he was supposed to be very careful and cautious to guard it. In the crowed, the applicant has lost the pistol. Once the pistol went into the hands of someone else, it is a matter of semantics to say whether it was stolen by someone or lost by the applicant. The net result is the same, if the applicant, who was supposed to discharge the power on behest of the State, has failed to exhibit the required amount of care.

The loss of weapon by the member of any force who are supposed to handle them would undoubtedly be a serious dereliction and lapse. The Disciplinary Authority has, in a way taken, a lenient view and imposed the punishment of reduction of salary, by one stage. The Appellate Authority has shown further indulgence and modified the punishment to that of forfeiture of one year of approved service temporarily.

We do not find any merit in this OA and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.