Sanjay Kumar Gupta vs Commissioner Of Police & Others

Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)

The instant OA has been preferred by the applicant who is working as SI in Delhi Police. A crime was committed at ATM of ICICI Bank at Sadar

Bazar,on 29th June, 2016. When this case came up for trial in the Court, the Court observed that the applicant, who was the investigation officer in

this crime, did not conduct the investigation carefully to obtain the CCTV footage of this ATM of ICICI Bank.

Thereafter, the applicant was issued a show cause notice vide order dated 20.8.2018 by the respondents. He submitted his defence. Not agreeing

with the defence, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order by imposing punishment of “censure†vide order dated 04.2.2019. The applicant

preferred an appeal dated 26.07.2019. The said appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.10.2019.

The applicant is aggrieved by this punishment order and has preferred the instant OA.

It was brought out that the case pertains to an incident at ATM of ICCI Bank in Sadar Bazar on 29.6.2016. The complainant/victim therein, had

lodged a complaint to the Delhi Police on 29.6.2016 itself immediately after the crime. The complaint goes like this : the complainant/victim went to

ATM to withdraw some cash amount. Somebody was already present there in the ATM. When the complainant started to withdraw the cash with his

ATM card, he faced some difficulty. This other person was watching him all along during that time. On the pretext of helping the complainant, he took

the ATM card and while returning it, he replaced the ATM card with another similar looking card. The complainant went away from ATM carrying

with him the replaced card without realizing that anything was amiss. Thereafter, the complainant/victim received an SMS on his mobile that

Rs.10000/- has been withdrawn from his SBI Bank account. He immediately made a complaint to the Police about it and narrated the whole incident.

The applicant herein was deputed for the purpose of investigation of the said case. He tried to collect CCTV footage from the Bank. However, he

was advised that said footage will be available from Head Office of Bank. He noted this information in case diary on date 29.06.2016, with a remark

to advise the position to SHO.

The applicant brings out that he had to proceed on emergency leave w.e.f. 3.7.2016 to 10.07.2016. Meanwhile, he was transferred to another post

on 09.7.2016. Accordingly, the said investigation was entrusted to another investigation officer namely, Head Constable Kesar Singh on 05.08.2016.

Requisition to collect CCTV footage from the Bank was submitted on 03.11.2016. Thereupon, the Bank advised that CCTV footage keeps on being

recorded on a rolling basis and the oldest footage gets automatically deleted while recording current footage. The footage for 29.6.2016 could not be

provided being too old.

When the matter went to the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, the following was noted on 21.8.2018:-

“Compliance report filed from DCP concerned Perused show case notice.

Show cause noticed has been issued to first IO SI Sanjay Kumar has not been conducted the proper investigation. However, perusal of the record

reveals that on the last date of hearing, complainant appeared in person and stated that he is satisfied with the investigation done by the police.

However, there is serious lapse on the part of the IO with the (sic). In my considered opinion, as the offence was committed on 29.06.2018 no fruitful

purpose shall be served by further investigation in the present matter proper action has been done by DCP concerned against erring IOs as already

stated that no fruitful purpose shall be served for untrace report filed by the police is accepted.

File be consigned to record room.

(Shefali Barnala Tandon)

MM-6(C )/THC/Delhi

21.08.2018.â€​

Based upon this, a show cause notice was issued to the applicant herein, which culminated in punishment of “Censureâ€​, which is challenged in this

OA.

Applicant’s counsel also pleaded that, there is contradiction in the charge as made out in show cause notice and in the fault on which the

punishment order has been imposed by DA. The show cause notice,reads :

“Further, as per enquiry report of ACP/PG Cell/North, there is a serious lapse on part of 1st IO/SI Sanjay Kumar. He had ample time to procure

the CCTV footage of ATM entre from ICICI Bank and to get the portrait of accused prepared at the instance of complainant on immediate basis.

The CCTV footage and portrait of accused were the key evidences which could be very much helpful to establish identity of accused person and to

solve the case.â€​

and the actual fault based on which punishment was issued, reads as under :

“He received the copy of SCN and submitted his written reply. He was also heard in O.R. by the undersigned on 11.1.09. Written as well as oral

submission made by him is not found to be convincing. The case file was with IO/SI Sanjay Kumar, the applicant herein, for a week before he

proceeded for leave, nothing was done in the case. When the incident has happened inside the ATM, it is the first duty of the IO to ask for CCTV

footage from the Bank and it should be reflected in 1st case diary also. The precious evidence lost at initial stage has actually weakened the case and

has brought the adverse remark from the Hon’ble Court as well. Hence, he is censured for the misconduct.â€​

The applicant pleads that on his part, he did make efforts to procure CCTV footage, and since it was not available, he made entry in case diary also

with a further remark to advise SHO, all on 29.6.2016 itself. Accordingly, he is not at fault and cannot be punished.

The matter has been heard at admission stage. Ms. Esha Mazumdar, learned counsel appears on advanced notice.

The Tribunal notes that from the incident, as noted above, it is clear that the applicant was fully aware, on 29.6.2016 itself when the incident

happened, of the critical need of CCTV footage and that it was to be obtained from Bank HQrs office. However, neither did he make efforts to

contact Bank HQrs nor did he even sent a letter to Bank HQrs office to seek the CCTV footage. He only made an entry in case diary and marked it

for information of SHO. He had ample time from 29.6.2016 to 3.7.2016, before proceeding on emergency leave, while he was on duty and was the IO

of this case, to approach Bank HQrs to obtain CCTV footage.

Since he took no effective action, not even a letter to Bank, to collect the CCTV footage, it is a clear case of carelessness and abdication/shifting of

responsibility.

The pleas by applicant of contradiction (para 7 supra), are of no help to applicant. A close reading of charge and punishment order makes it amply

clear that the both are about one and the same thing : not obtaining CCTV footage despite ample time being available with the applicant who was the

IO in this case.

The applicant had ample opportunity, including personal hearing, to present and defend his case. This opportunity was availed also. The orders

passed by DA as well as AA, are detailed orders.

In view of foregoing, the Tribunal does not find any merit in OA. The same is liable to be dismissed at admission stage itself. The OA is

accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs.