Ram Niwas vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors

Jasmine Ahmed, J

The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and prayed for the following reliefs:

"Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon"ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to:

(a) quash and set aside the impugned orders placed at Annexure A-1, Annexure A/2 and Annexure A/ 3 with all consequential benefits;

(b) award costs of the proceedings and

(c) pass  any  other  order/direction  which  this Hon"ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case."

The applicant, while serving as Inspector in Delhi Police was served with a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 28.12.2012 (Annexure A/1) proposing a penalty of censure for an act of gross misconduct, carelessness, negligence, dereliction & unprofessionalism in the discharge of his official duties, on receipt of a complaint from one Mrs. Neeru Kapoor. The complaint was marked to the applicant to undertake the enquiry and in that process he had requested the Manager of ICICI Bank to freeze two accounts without conducting proper enquiry. In fact, there was a case pending in the High Court of Delhi between the complainant and the parties mentioned in the complaint.

The applicant did not file any reply, despite reminders issued to him. Hence, the matter was decided ex-parte and the penalty of censure was imposed upon him vide order dated 6.03.2013 against which the applicant preferred an appeal on 01.5.2013 wherein it has been stated that he remained busy in connection with his daughter"s marriage and thus failed to file reply to the SCN. He has referred to the decision in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. J.Ahmed (1979) 2 SCC 286), wherein misconduct has been defined in the following manner.

"Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct."

Accordingly, the counsel for the applicant states that as defined in the Hon"ble Apex Court judgment in the case of J.Ahmed (supra), misconduct would arise from ill motive. And he states that in the entire scenario of enquiry entrusted upon him, nothing was pointed towards any ill motive of the applicant. He has also stated that mere negligence of any act while performing duty was error of judgment or innocent mistake and it does not constitute any misconduct as held by the Hon"ble Apex Court. Accordingly, he states that if at all any misconduct can be alleged it is only of error of judgment or innocent mistake. Again he submitted that had there been proper guiding instructions setting the limit of enquiry, he would not have gone to the extent of freezing the bank account. He stated that from the act of freezing of bank account, no ill motive of the applicant or any prejudice caused to the parties had been proved by the respondents. In his appeal the applicant has categorically taken the plea that he got the bank accounts freezed as a precaution for a limited period till the enquiry was completed and not permanently. Accordingly the learned counsel for the applicant states that the punishment inflicted on the applicant is arbitrary and unjustified as the applicant has acted in a good faith. Counsel for the applicant states that any act done in good faith cannot be termed as illegal.

The appellate authority considered the appeal of the applicant comprehensively and was not inclined to convert the penalty of censure into exoneration. Hence, the applicant filed this OA on the ground that error of judgment cannot constitute a misconduct.

Per-contra, the respondents have contested the OA and filed a counter. The main contention of the respondents is that the applicant had gone beyond a reasonable prudence and reasonableness by the act of freezing the bank account without holding an enquiry which has caused unnecessary harassment, mental agony and dent in the reputation of the said individual.

Counsel for the respondents contended that the job assigned to the applicant was limited viz. to conduct enquiry only. Going ahead with freezing of account of a party without due enquiry, and without any directions of the senior officers amounted to exceeding the jurisdiction. Further the applicant had not furnished any reply and the reason given for that also was not satisfactory as the marriage of his daughter took place only in March, 2013 while the SCN was issued on 28.12.2012.

Counsel for the respondents also stated that the applicant has also admitted his action of going beyond and freezing the bank account in his appeal dated 01.05.2013. She argued that by admitting that the applicant has acted beyond board, the punishment imposed upon him is nothing illegal or arbitrary on the part of respondents.

Arguments were heard and documents perused on record.

The freezing of account of a third party without due enquiry and without the permission of a senior officer cannot be treated as a conduct deserving forgiveness and can not be disregarded merely as an act of error of judgment, particularly as this act has caused the third party to face loss of reputation, financial loss and mental agony. This cannot be said to be a case of mere error of judgment, but also a case of indecent haste without proper enquiry and thus, the applicant indeed exceeded its jurisdiction. An explicit establishment of motive is not always necessary as in this case where the undue haste implicitly incorporates an unreasonable and undesirable motive. There is no flaw in the decision arrived at by the disciplinary or the appellate authority.

Given the above facts, the OA is dismissed as devoid of merit. No costs.