Sanjeev Kumar (I) vs Commissioner Of Police & Ors.

By way of the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the Show Cause Notice dated 22.08.2017, the order dated 03.01.2018 whereby the penalty of censure was imposed upon him, and the appellate order dated 06.08.2019 whereby his appeal against the said penalty was rejected.

The brief factual matrix of the case is that the applicant was working as Inspector (Executive) and was posted as SHO, Police Station Harsh Vihar, during the relevant period. On the basis of reports submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nand Nagri, pursuant to visits conducted on 08.08.2017 and 16.08.2017, it was noticed that certain employees working in different factories had not been verified by the concerned Beat Staff.

On the basis of the aforesaid reports, the applicant was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 22.08.2017 alleging, inter alia, that despite the importance of verification of employees/servants and despite the Beat Staff having been briefed in this regard, he had failed to exercise proper supervision over the verification work. Such conduct was alleged to amount to negligence, carelessness, unprofessional attitude and lack of proper supervision on his part.

The applicant submitted his reply to the Show Cause Notice on 09.12.2017. He stated, inter alia, that he had briefed the Beat Staff regarding verification of employees and that, in the case of short-term/outsourced labour, practical difficulties were faced as such workers frequently changed their place of employment. He further referred to the preventive action taken by the police, including Kalandaras and proceedings under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to contend that he had not neglected the issue and had taken appropriate preventive measures.

The applicant was heard by the Disciplinary Authority on 29.12.2017. Thereafter, vide order dated 03.01.2018, the Disciplinary Authority imposed upon him the penalty of censure. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred an appeal, which came to be rejected vide order dated 06.08.2019.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation against the applicant was not established merely from the fact that certain employees had not been verified. It is submitted that the applicant had specifically stated that the Beat Staff had been briefed and that practical difficulties existed in verification of short-term/outsourced workers.

Learned counsel further submits that the applicant had also relied upon the preventive action taken by him, including Kalandaras and proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C., but the said defence was not properly considered by the Disciplinary Authority. It is also submitted that the applicant had relied upon an RTI response obtained from the Verification Cell, North-East District, which, according to him, raised a doubt regarding the assertion concerning briefing/advisory memos.

Learned counsel further submits that, while considering the appeal, reliance was placed upon a clarification of the DCP, North-East District, but the appellate order does not adequately disclose how the applicant’s specific defence was considered.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the applicant, being the SHO, was responsible for proper supervision of the Beat Staff and for ensuring verification of employees/servants in his jurisdiction. It is submitted that two separate inspections revealed that the verification work had not been carried out in respect of a number of persons. The respondents rely upon S.O. No. 29/91 in support of the aforesaid responsibility. It is further submitted that the applicant was issued the Show Cause Notice, was granted an opportunity to submit his reply and was also heard before imposition of the penalty. The appellate authority, according to the respondents, duly considered the grounds raised by the applicant and rejected the appeal.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings and the material available on record.

The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is well settled. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 749, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made.” The said principle was reiterated in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “The High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal.” The Court, therefore, ordinarily does not re-appreciate evidence or examine its adequacy or reliability, but may interfere where the decision-making process is not in accordance with law, principles of natural justice are violated, irrelevant or extraneous considerations have been taken into account, or the conclusion is otherwise not sustainable on the material available. The importance of recording reasons has also been emphasised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, wherein it was observed that “A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.”

In the present case, there is no dispute that verification of employees/servants was a matter requiring attention of the police authorities and that, during the inspections conducted on 08.08.2017 and 16.08.2017, certain persons were found to have remained unverified. The applicant, being the SHO, also had supervisory responsibility in relation to the functioning of the Beat Staff. The reliance placed by the respondents upon S.O. No. 29/91 is, therefore, relevant.

The relevant portion of the said Standing Order, as reproduced in the Counter Reply, states that immigrant servants, floating labourers and other casual labourers coming to Delhi in search of employment may have doubtful antecedents and that the concerned SHO is required to check their antecedents from the Crime Record Office (CRO) to ascertain whether they are involved in any case in Delhi or elsewhere. It further provides that the relevant register is to be checked every fortnight by the SHO and every month by the ACP concerned.

However, the allegation against the applicant was not merely that certain employees had remained unverified. The allegation was that, despite the Beat Staff having been briefed, the applicant had failed to exercise proper supervision and thereby displayed negligence, carelessness and lack of proper supervision.

The distinction is material. The fact that certain employees were found unverified, by itself, would not establish misconduct on the part of the applicant. What was required to be examined was whether the applicant, notwithstanding his supervisory responsibility and the alleged briefing of the Beat Staff, had failed in a manner attributable to him to discharge that responsibility.

The applicant had specifically taken the stand that he had briefed the Beat Staff regarding verification and that practical difficulties existed in verification of short-term/outsourced labour. He had also referred to the preventive action taken by the police, including proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and Kalandaras, in support of his contention that he had not remained inactive in relation to the issue. These submissions were directly relevant to the allegation of negligence and lack of supervision.

The question, therefore, was not merely whether verification was required or whether some persons had remained unverified. The relevant question was whether the material on record established the particular supervisory lapse attributed to the applicant, notwithstanding the explanation and the steps claimed to have been taken by him.

The applicant had also relied upon an RTI response obtained from the Verification Cell. The said response, relied upon by the applicant in support of his defence, was relevant to the factual aspect concerning the alleged briefing/advisory action. This Tribunal is not, however, treating the said RTI response as conclusive proof that no briefing had taken place. Nor is it undertaking an assessment of the relative reliability of the competing materials. The limited question is whether the specific defence raised by the applicant received due consideration.

In this context, the disciplinary order ought to indicate, in substance, why the applicant’s explanation regarding briefing of the Beat Staff, the difficulties stated to have been faced in verification of outsourced/short-term labour and the preventive measures relied upon by him did not answer the allegation of supervisory negligence. The requirement is not of an elaborate order, but of a consideration sufficient to disclose the basis on which the specific allegation against the applicant was held to be established.

The appellate proceedings also require consideration. The applicant has specifically pleaded that reliance was placed upon a clarification of the DCP, North-East District, while considering his appeal. The appellate order records the preventive measures referred to by the applicant; however, it does not sufficiently indicate how the specific aspects of his defence were dealt with and how the material relied upon established the supervisory lapse attributed to him.

This Tribunal is conscious that it cannot substitute its own conclusion for that of the Disciplinary Authority merely because another view may be possible. Equally, this is not a case where the Tribunal is required to re-appreciate the evidence or determine whether the applicant’s explanation should ultimately be accepted. The limited consideration is whether the material relied upon by the disciplinary authorities was properly connected with the specific misconduct alleged against the applicant and whether his material defence was duly considered.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that the matter would be better served by reconsideration by the competent disciplinary authority. No final opinion is being expressed by this Tribunal on the merits of the allegation against the applicant.

Accordingly, the present Original Application is partly allowed. The penalty order dated 03.01.2018 and the appellate order dated 06.08.2019 are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the competent authority amongst the respondents for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

While undertaking such reconsideration, the competent authority amongst the respondents shall consider the applicant’s reply to the Show Cause Notice and the material available on record, including his specific defence regarding briefing of the Beat Staff, the nature of short-term/outsourced labour and the preventive measures stated to have been undertaken by him, and shall examine whether the material on record establishes the particular supervisory lapse attributed to him. The competent authority shall thereafter pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.