Ranjay Atrishya vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the applicant joined Delhi Police as Sub-Inspector and got promoted as Inspector in Delhi Police. He was issued a show cause notice dated 04.06.2012 for imposition of penalty of censure on the allegation that while registering a Criminal Case vide FIR No. 164/2012, the appropriate section of burglary was not incorporated and instead a case of theft was registered. The applicant sought time to submit his reply to the show cause notice but the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 16.08.2012 imposed the punishment of censure upon the applicant. After receiving the punishment order, the applicant pointed out that on 01.06.2012, the DD No. 39A was received at Police Station Kirti Nagar and the Head Constable Balbir Singh, who was Inquiry Officer of the case, reached the spot and registered the FIR after recording the statement of the complainant. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to Sub-Inspector Nathu Lal. The applicant states that he was not involved in receipt of complaint or registration of FIR No. 164/2012, hence there was no inaction on his part in ensuring that appropriate sections of IPC are invoked. It is further averred that even otherwise, mentioning of Sections at the time of registration of FIR is not of much consequence since the sections are incorporated at the time of registration as well as at the stage of framing of charges. The applicant being the SHO came to know about this fact later when he enquired about the development of the cases and got the appropriate sections added in FIR No. 164/2012.

The applicant has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. J. Ahmed, AIR 1979 SC 1022 wherein it has been held that failure to attain highest standard of efficiency is not misconduct. Similarly, in the case of Debabrata Ghosh Vs. UOI & Anr., (1990) 12 ATC 603 (Calcutta), the Court has held that failure to achieve a target arbitrarily fixed does not tantamount to misconduct.

Through the medium of this OA, the applicant has challenged the show cause notice dated 04.06.2012 and the punishment order dated 16.08.2012, confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 18.04.2013, and sought redressal of his grievance.

In their counter, the respondents contend that the applicant was the main Supervisory Officer of the Police Station and the facts of the case were very much in his notice. The investigation of the case was entrusted to Sub Inspector N.L. Yadav on the directions of the applicant so he cannot state that he was not involved or that there was no fault on his part. Though the show cause notice was received by the applicant on 06.06.2012 but he did not reply to the same, despite two reminders, showing that he had nothing to say in his defence. Accordingly, the show cause notice was confirmed and the conduct of the applicant was censured on 16.08.2012. The applicant's representation challenging the punishment order of censure was considered by the Appellate Authority and rejected on 18.04.2013.

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi stated that the applicant was in-charge of the Police Station but failed to exercise proper supervision over the functioning of the subordinate staff and intentionally lodged the case of theft instead of burglary. This was obviously an attempt to minimize the offence, which showed not only lack of supervision but also manipulation on his part. She drew my attention to Circular dated 09.05.1992 issued by Commissioner of Police wherein it has been emphasized that cases of robbery or burglary should be monitored seriously and proper information relating to such type of cases should be filled up in the prescribed proforma for review of progress of such cases.

5.1 Learned counsel for the applicant Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj stated that the applicant has been unnecessarily punished for no fault of his. He reiterated the pleadings made in the OA and relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J. Ahmed(supra) and the judgment in the case of Inspector Prem Chand Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, JT 2007 (5) SC 294 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that acts of negligence, errors of judgments, innocent mistakes do not constitute misconduct.

5.2 After giving my thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case, I find that the respondents have censured the applicant on the allegation that in the case of burglary, the applicant failed to invoke appropriate sections of law. He invoked sections pertaining to theftu/s 380 of IPC to minimize the enormity offence with mala fide intent.

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents Ms. Harvinder Oberoi valiantly tried to justify the decision of the respondents to censure the applicant. She mentioned that theft is a bailable offence while burglary is not. On a pointed query, whether the applicant had actually granted bail to the accused showing mala fide intent, the reply was in the negative.

Learned counsel for the applicant Sh. Bhardwaj placed reliance on certain judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that committing of innocent mistakes, or mere acts of negligence do not constitute misconduct. The current case, in my view, would fall under such category.

There is no corroborative evidence to show that the applicant was in connivance with the accused, nor are there any leads which point out that the applicant consciously tried to misuse his position. Rather, the moment the said facts came to his notice, the applicant got the appropriate sections added in the FIR No. 164/2012 on the same day.

In view of the aforementioned discussions, show cause notice dated 04.06.2012, order dated 16.08.2012 of the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 13.04.2013 of the Appellate Authority are quashed and set aside. The O.A. is allowed. The respondents are directed to give consequential benefits to the applicant as per law. No costs.