Sanjeev Kumar (III) vs Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors.

By way of the present Original Application (O.A.) filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the Show Cause Notice dated 30.05.2017, the order dated 19.08.2017 whereby the punishment of ‘censure’ was imposed upon him and the appellate order dated 10.07.2019 whereby his appeal against the said punishment was rejected.

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, Inspector Sanjeev Kumar, was posted as SHO, Police Station Harsh Vihar, on 05.09.2016. A complaint was received from the office of the Joint Commissioner of Police, Eastern Range, regarding alleged harassment of one Ms. Pooja and her family members by certain boys and the alleged failure of the local police to take appropriate action. Enquiries were conducted through ACP/Seelampur and ACP/Nand Nagari. During the course of enquiry, the complainant initially stated that the alleged boys had not harassed her for about 15–20 days and that she did not want any action on her complaint.

The matter was thereafter taken up at the level of the Joint Commissioner of Police, Eastern Range, who got the position confirmed from the complainant. Subsequently, FIR No. 293/2016 dated 08.09.2016 under Sections 354-D/509/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Harsh Vihar. The investigation was entrusted to HC Bijender. Accused Pawan was arrested and two Juvenile Children in Conflict with Law were apprehended. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was prepared and put up before the Court on 02.02.2017.

The complainant, however, continued to express dissatisfaction and alleged that she was being threatened by the accused persons and, on account thereof, was unable to attend her college. Thereafter, another case, being FIR No. 37/2017 under Section 509/34 IPC, was registered at Police Station Harsh Vihar and investigated by SI Samrat. The accused persons were subsequently arrested. On perusal of the reports relating to the two cases, the Joint Commissioner of Police, Eastern Range, took a serious view and directed action against the Investigating Officers as well as the applicant in his capacity as SHO. The allegation against the applicant was that he had failed to brief and supervise the investigation of the complaints/cases in a professional manner.

Consequently, a Show Cause Notice dated 30.05.2017 was issued to the applicant, calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be censured for the aforesaid lapse. The applicant submitted his written reply on 28.06.2017 and was also heard in oral representation on 05.07.2017. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the reply and the oral submissions, did not find the same satisfactory and imposed the punishment of ‘censure’ upon the applicant vide order dated 19.08.2017.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority considered the appeal and heard the applicant in oral representation and, vide order dated 10.07.2019, rejected the appeal. The applicant has, therefore, approached this Tribunal challenging the aforesaid orders.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned orders are unsustainable as the defence raised by the applicant has not been properly considered. It is submitted that the applicant had joined as SHO, Police Station Harsh Vihar, only on 05.09.2016, whereas the initial complaint and the enquiry relating thereto had already taken place. Immediately after joining, the applicant took action and FIR No. 293/2016 was registered on 08.09.2016. The investigation was thereafter completed and the charge-sheet was submitted before the Court on 02.02.2017.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant cannot be held responsible for any alleged inaction which preceded his joining as SHO. It is further submitted that the subsequent registration of another FIR cannot, by itself, establish any failure on the part of the applicant to discharge his supervisory duties. According to learned counsel, the applicant had acted promptly on the complaint and there is no material demonstrating any deliberate omission or failure on his part.

Learned counsel further submits that the applicant had explained before the authorities that he had acted promptly after joining the police station and had also briefed the senior officers regarding the matter. It is contended that the applicant's defence, including the chronology of registration and investigation of the cases, was not properly dealt with by the Disciplinary Authority. Merely observing that the applicant's reply was not satisfactory, without dealing with the material contentions raised therein, does not amount to proper consideration of the defence. He also submitted that the allegation regarding failure to “brief/supervise” the investigation is vague and does not identify any specific act or omission on the part of the applicant which constituted negligence or lack of supervision. The mere fact that the complainant continued to remain dissatisfied or that another FIR was subsequently registered cannot, according to learned counsel, constitute proof of misconduct on the part of the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the Appellate Authority also failed to properly consider the aforesaid aspects and proceeded principally on the basis that both FIRs had been registered during the tenure of the applicant as SHO. According to learned counsel, such reasoning does not establish that the applicant had failed to discharge his supervisory duties.

Learned counsel for the applicant has also challenged the impugned orders as being non-speaking and suffering from non-application of mind. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents had suggested that perhaps the applicant had failed to submit the “correct report”. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no such “correct report” was identified in the Show Cause Notice and, therefore, the applicant could not have been proceeded against on the basis of an allegation which was not specifically put to him.

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Triveni Prasad Mishra & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., W.P. No. 4180/2020, decided on 18.06.2020, wherein it was emphasised that reasons are required to be assigned while considering the defence of an employee and that a mere conclusion that the reply is unsatisfactory, without disclosing the reasons for such conclusion, cannot sustain an adverse order.

Learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, submits that the punishment order as well as the appellate order deserve to be set aside and the applicant be granted consequential reliefs.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. It is submitted that the applicant, being the SHO of Police Station Harsh Vihar, was responsible not only for guiding and directing the Investigating Officers but also for ensuring proper supervision of investigation and effective handling of complaints, particularly those relating to a young woman. According to the respondents, the applicant failed to discharge the supervisory responsibilities attached to the office of SHO.

Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that, after perusal of the reports concerning the two cases, the Joint Commissioner of Police, Eastern Range, took a serious view and directed action against the Investigating Officers as well as the applicant. The respondents contend that although FIR No. 293/2016 was registered after the applicant joined as SHO, the complainant continued to remain dissatisfied and subsequently reported that she was still being threatened. Thereafter, another case was registered. According to the respondents, these circumstances indicated that the applicant had failed to take appropriate action against the alleged persons and had also failed to properly supervise the investigation.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant, as SHO, was expected to supervise the work of the Investigating Officers and to ensure appropriate action on such complaints, but failed to do so. It is further submitted that the applicant was afforded full opportunity before the Disciplinary Authority. The Show Cause Notice was served upon him, he submitted his written reply and was also heard in oral representation. The Disciplinary Authority considered his written reply as well as his oral submissions and, having found the same unsatisfactory, confirmed the Show Cause Notice and imposed the punishment of ‘censure’ vide order dated 19.08.2017.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant thereafter preferred an appeal which was duly considered by the Appellate Authority. The applicant was heard in oral representation and, upon consideration of the material on record, the appeal was rejected vide order dated 10.07.2019. According to the respondents, the Appellate Authority found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the punishment imposed upon the applicant is only ‘censure’, which is a minor punishment and the lowest category of punishment. It is contended that a lenient view was taken having regard to the circumstances of the case. He further submits that the applicant, being the officer in charge of the police station, was duty-bound to guide and supervise the subordinate officers and to ensure that complaints, particularly those concerning women, were dealt with professionally and sensitively.

Learned counsel for the respondents accordingly submits that there is no justification for interference by this Tribunal and the Original Application deserves to be dismissed.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, including the original physical file/record produced by the respondents.

At the outset, it is necessary to observe that the present case is not one where the applicant was denied an opportunity of hearing. The record shows that the applicant was served with the Show Cause Notice, submitted his written reply and was also heard in oral representation. Thus, the challenge cannot be sustained on the ground that the applicant was denied an opportunity to put forth his defence.

The main question which arises for consideration is whether the defence raised by the applicant was adequately and meaningfully considered by the Disciplinary Authority and whether the conclusion regarding his alleged failure to brief and supervise the investigation is supported by reasons which demonstrate due application of mind to the material and the specific defence raised by him.

It is well settled that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited. This Tribunal does not ordinarily sit as an appellate authority over the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or undertake a re-appreciation of the evidence as if conducting a departmental appeal. At the same time, the decision-making process is amenable to judicial review where the authority fails to consider relevant material or does not disclose adequate reasons for rejecting the defence of the delinquent employee.

In the present case, the respondents have relied upon the fact that the applicant was the SHO during the relevant period and that both FIRs came to be registered during his tenure. The respondents have also relied upon the continued dissatisfaction expressed by the complainant and the subsequent registration of another case. These circumstances may undoubtedly be relevant for consideration by the competent authority. However, the mere fact that the FIRs were registered during the tenure of the applicant cannot, by itself, establish that the applicant failed to discharge his supervisory responsibility.

The applicant's specific defence was that he had joined the police station only on 05.09.2016, that FIR No. 293/2016 was registered within a few days thereafter, and that the investigation in the said case was completed and the charge-sheet filed before the Court on 02.02.2017. He also sought to explain the steps taken by him in relation to the complaint and the subsequent investigation. Thus, the relevant question was not merely whether the two FIRs were registered during his tenure, but whether, notwithstanding the steps taken by him, there was a specific failure on his part to discharge the supervisory duties attributed to him.

The Disciplinary Authority has recorded the relevant facts relating to the complaint, the registration of the two FIRs and the continued dissatisfaction of the complainant, and has concluded that the applicant failed to brief/supervise the investigation in a professional manner. The Disciplinary Authority has also recorded that the reply submitted by the applicant and his verbal submissions in O.R. were considered but were not found satisfactory.

The difficulty, however, is that the applicant's defence required consideration in the context of the specific lapse attributed to him. The fact that the complainant continued to remain dissatisfied and that a subsequent FIR was registered may indicate that the matter continued to require attention, but it does not, without further examination, establish the particular supervisory omission attributable to the applicant. There ought to be a discernible consideration of the applicant's explanation as to what action he had taken after assuming charge and why, despite such action, he was found responsible for negligence or lack of supervision.

The Appellate Authority has also referred to the fact that both cases were registered during the period when the applicant was posted as SHO and has observed that, despite registration of the first case, the complainant was again threatened. However, the applicant's contention that he had taken action immediately after joining and that the investigation in the first case was completed and the charge-sheet filed also required consideration in determining whether the subsequent events could legitimately be attributed to a failure on his part to supervise the investigation.

The requirement of recording reasons assumes significance in this context. In M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised the importance of recording reasons in administrative and quasi-judicial decision-making. Reasons enable the affected person to understand the basis of the decision and also facilitate judicial review of the decision-making process.

The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, namely Triveni Prasad Mishra & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., W.P. No. 4180/2020, decided on 18.06.2020, also proceeds on the principle that where a defence is raised by an employee, the competent authority must disclose why such defence is not acceptable rather than merely recording a conclusion that the reply is unsatisfactory. The statutory provision considered in that case arose under the Madhya Pradesh service rules; nevertheless, the broader principle concerning reasoned decision-making is relevant to the present controversy.

At the same time, I do not find it appropriate to hold that the impugned orders are completely devoid of reasons. The Disciplinary Authority has referred to the relevant factual circumstances and the Appellate Authority has also given reasons for not interfering with the punishment. The issue, however, is whether the reasons recorded adequately address the applicant's material defence and sufficiently establish the specific supervisory lapse attributed to him.

As regards the submission concerning the “correct report”, the same was raised during the hearing as a possible basis for the alleged lapse. If any such specific allegation is sought to be relied upon against the applicant, the same would necessarily have to be traceable to the substance of the allegation contained in the Show Cause Notice and the applicant must have had an adequate opportunity to meet it. An adverse decision cannot properly be sustained on the basis of a materially different allegation which was never put to the employee.

The respondents have also emphasised that the punishment imposed is only ‘censure’ and is the lowest category of punishment. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that ‘censure’ is a minor punishment. However, the minor nature of the punishment does not dispense with the requirement that the disciplinary authority must arrive at its conclusion after proper consideration of the defence raised by the employee. The question of the quantum of punishment would arise only after a sustainable finding regarding the alleged lapse is arrived at.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the matter warrants reconsideration by the competent Disciplinary Authority amongst the respondents. At this stage, I do not deem it appropriate to express any final opinion on the merits of the allegations levelled against the applicant.

It is pertinent to note that the Show Cause Notice dated 30.05.2017 specifically alleged that the applicant, while functioning as SHO, Police Station Harsh Vihar, had failed to brief and supervise the investigation of the complaints/cases in a professional manner and called upon him to show cause as to why he should not be censured for the said lapse. The applicant submitted his reply thereto and was also afforded an opportunity of oral hearing. Thus, the applicant was duly apprised of the allegation and was afforded an opportunity to defend himself. The infirmity noticed in the impugned orders relates essentially to the manner in which the applicant's defence was considered and the reasons recorded in support of the conclusion arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority. In these circumstances, I do not find it necessary to interfere with the Show Cause Notice itself.

Consequently, the order dated 19.08.2017 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the appellate order dated 10.07.2019 are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the competent Disciplinary Authority amongst the respondents for fresh consideration and decision in accordance with law.

The competent Disciplinary Authority shall reconsider the matter in the light of the Show Cause Notice dated 30.05.2017, the reply submitted by the applicant, his oral submissions and the relevant material on record, and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order. The consideration shall remain confined to the allegations contained in the Show Cause Notice. In case any materially new or different allegation is proposed to be relied upon, the applicant shall be afforded an appropriate opportunity of defence in accordance with law.

The aforesaid exercise shall preferably be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The present O.A. is accordingly partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

The original departmental file produced by the respondents is hereby returned to them.