MAHIPAL SINGH v. M/O HOME AFFAIRS

3

2. Mr. Vikas Bakshi submitted a complaint to the Lt. Governor of Delhi, stating that he had been subjected to ill treatment in the Police Station. This resulted in initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the two Inspectors and the SI, named above. The inquiry officer observed that the incident occurred mostly on account of the objection raised by one of the Inspectors for Vikas Bakshi holding a secret camera. The inquiry officer found that there was no basis for Mr. Bakshi to hold a camera. It was also observed that though he filed a writ petition before the Hon"ble Delhi High Court challenging the Kalandra, the High Court declined to interfere, and that the concerned criminal court, before which the Kalandra was lodged, has taken cognizance of the offence. Ultimately, the departmental proceedings initiated against the Inspectors and SI were dropped, that too, after review by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, vide order dated 06.04.2015.

3. The applicant was issued memorandum dated 03.01.2013, wherein it was mentioned that it is proposed to hold an inquiry against his acts and omissions in relation to the said incident. Statement of article of charge and statement of imputation of misconduct were also enclosed. The applicant filed OA No.2808/2013 challenging the charge memorandum

4

dated 03.01.2013. The OA was disposed of through order dated 14.01.2015, with a direction to the respondents to take into account, the various aspects mentioned by the applicant in his representations. Not satisfied with that, the applicant filed a writ petition, WP (C) No.1001/2015, before the Delhi High Court. The writ petition was disposed of through order dated 03.02.2015 by fixing six weeks time for the respondents to pass reasoned and speaking order. When that was not complied with, the applicant filed CP (C) No.406/2015 before the High court. It was closed on 03.07.2015, fixing a period of one week for compliance.

4. Stating to be in compliance of the same, the Chief Secretary of the Government of NCT of Delhi, passed order dated 22.06.2015, taking the view that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Inspectors and the SI, on the one hand, and those initiated against the applicant, on the other, are different, and accordingly, decided to continue the proceedings. This OA is filed challenging the charge memorandum dated 03.01.2013, as well as the order dated 22.06.2015 passed by the Chief Secretary.

5

5. The applicant contends that he had absolutely no role to play in the registration of the FIR/Kalandra against Mr. Vikas Bakshi. He contends that if at all there was any role played by him, reference would certainly have been made thereto in the proceedings that were initiated against the Inspectors and the SI. He contends that two independent and parallel inquiries cannot be conducted in respect of the same incident, that too, when the trial court has already taken cognizance of the offences mentioned in the Kalandra.

6. The respondents filed counter affidavit opposing the OA. It is stated that the applicant was very much present in the Police Station when the incident took place, and Mr. Vikas Bakshi clearly stated that the Kalandra was registered by the Station House Officer against him at the instance of the applicant.

7. We heard Shri A. K. Behera and Shri Sourabh Ahuja, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Ranjan Tyagi and Shri Amit Anand, learned counsel for the respondents, in detail.

8. The basic facts are not in serious dispute. The root cause for the proceedings against various officials of the Police

6

Department connected with the CR Park Police Station, is an incident that had taken place on 09.09.2010. It appears that when he was brought to the Police Station, Mr. vikas Bakshi was operating his secret camera, and acting in an abnormal manner. One of the Inspectors raised objection to the holding of camera by that gentleman, on which the latter got infuriated, and created a scene. Since the incident occurred right in the precincts of the Police Station, an FIR was registered.

9. In case any high-handedness occurs against an accused in the hands of police, steps can certainly be initiated. The FIR registered in this behalf became the subject matter of a writ petition and a criminal case. The Hon"ble Delhi High court refused to quash the FIR. On its part, the criminal court took cognizance of the offence, and the trial is awaited.

10. Since the accused himself made a complaint, prudence demanded that departmental proceedings are initiated, depending on the outcome of the criminal case. Painting their own officials as violators of law, even while the criminal case is pending, would certainly be a step that would result in demoralization of the officials. Though there are instances of police excesses, it is not uncommon that persons

7

with criminal background and political and/or financial support do not hesitate to take on the Police, and put them on defence, so that their nefarious activities go unhindered. In such cases, they have the mechanism at their disposal to blow the issue beyond proportion before the courts and through media. The result would be that a police official would be hesitant to take action even if he is convinced about commission of a crime, in case the accused is a vociferous person with adequate resources at his disposal. If the police official tends to become indifferent or hesitant, being afraid of his being targeted, the ultimate loss would be of the society, not to speak of the poor victim. An innocent person would have no place to go.

11. Notwithstanding the untimely initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Inspectors and SI, the inquiry was held, and the proceedings were dropped on finding that the allegations made against them are not proved. Here itself, it is relevant to extract the summary of allegations made against Mr. Anil Dureja, Inspector, in the year 2011. It reads as under:

"It is alleged against Inspr. Anil Kumar Dureja No. D-1/651 (PIS No. 16860075), Inspr.

8

Sanjay Kumar Singh No. D-2753 (PIS No. 16890042) and SI D.P. Singh No. D-1111 (PIS No. 16950207) that while posted in PS Chitranjan Park as SHO, Inspr. Investigation and SI P.S. of C.R. Park respectively, on 09.09.10 Sh. Vikas Bakshi R/o 52/97 C.R. Park New Delhi was called in the Police Station in sequel to the incident that had taken place on 08.09.10 between Sh. Vikas Bakshi and one lady Ms. Nazanil Ghaidi R/o 52/3, C.R. Park, New Delhi through HC Nahar Singh. Sh. Vikas Bakshi along with his wife and PSO Ct. Hari Singh came to the Police Station at about 6:00 p.m. dated 09.09.10. At that time SHO, Inspr. Anil Dureja, Inspr. Investigation Inspr. Sanjay Kumar and ACP Mahipal Singh were present in the SHO"s room. Sh. Vikas Bakshi was hiding a spy camera in his shirt pocket which was found blinking. SHO Inspr. Anil Dureja objected to this practice, which offended Mr. Bakshi and some heated arguments took place between SHO/C.R. Park and Mr. Vikas Bakshi. After that SI D.P. Singh arrested Mr. Bakshi u/s 91/93/97 DP Act. His medical examination was got conducted in the AIIMS Hospital and then he was released on bail. The action u/s 91/93/97 DP Act taken against Sh. Vikas Bakshi was without proper justification. The contents of Kalandra pronounce Sh. Vikas Bakshi being under the influence of liquor but the same is not supported by the medical examination. It is also unthinkable that a person who has been summoned by the police would visit the Police Station in a drunken condition.

This Act on the part of Inspr. Anil Kumar Dureja No. D-1/651 (PIS No. 16860075), Inspr. Sanjay Kumar Singh No. D-2753 (PIS No. 16890042) and SI D.P. Singh No. D-1111 (PIS No. 16950207) amounts to gross misconduct, carelessness, dereliction in the discharge of their official duties which renders them liable to be dealt with departmentally under the provision of

9

Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules- 1980."

Except that the presence of the applicant herein was mentioned in the SHO"s room, it was not even alleged that he played any role in registration of the case. Further, if there existed anything against the applicant, the proceedings ought to have been initiated simultaneously so that there would not be any scope for contradiction or inconsistency.

12. The proceedings initiated against Mr. Anil Dureja ended in the form of an order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the disciplinary authority. The following paragraphs are relevant to be taken note of:

"This is the final order in the joint departmental enquiry initiated against Inspr. Anil Dureja, No. D-1/651 (PIS No. 16860075), Inspr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, No. D-2753 (PIS No. 16890042) and SI Dhananjay Pratap Singh, No. D-1111 (PIS No. 16950270) that while they were posted as SHO/C.R. Park, Inspr. Investigation, PS C.R. Park and S.I. PS C.R. Park respectively on 09.09.2010 (here-in-after called the delinquents) under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal), Rules, 1980, vide order No.DE-105/1227-95/P.Cell (P-V)/Vig., dated 30.09.2011, on the allegations that Shri Vikash Bakshi r/o 52/97 C.R. Park, New Delhi was called in Police Station sequel to the incident had taken place on 08.09.2010 between Shri Vikash Bakshi and one lady Ms. Nazanil Gandhi r/o 52/03 C.R. Park, New Delhi through HC Nahar

10

Singh. Subsequently on the summoning to the Police Station Shri Vikash Bakshi and his wife and PSO Ct. Hari Singh came to the P.S. at about

6 P.M. on 09.09.2010. At that time Inspr. Anil Dureja, SHO, Inspr. Sanjay Kumar Singh and Shri Mahipal Singh, ACP was present in the SHO"s room. Shri Vikash Bakshi had a spy camera in his shirt pocket, which was found blinking. Inspr. Anil Dureja, SHO objected to this which offended Shri Bakshi and some heated arguments took place between Inspr. Anil Dureja and Mr. Vikas Bakshi. After that SI Dhananjay Pratap Singh arrested Shri Vikas Bakshi u/s 91/93/97 DP Act. His medical was got conducted in the AIIMS Hospital and then he was released on bail. The action u/s 91/93/97 D.P. Act taken against Sh. Vikash Bakshi was without proper justification. The contents of Kalandra pronounce Shri Vikash Bakshi being under the influence of liquor but the same is not supported by the medical examination. It is also unthinkable that a person who has been summoned by the police would visit the place in a drunken condition.

The departmental enquiry was entrusted to Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Addl. DCP/PCR (Ops.) and consequent upon the transfer it was transferred to Sh. Umesh Kumar, Addl. DCP/(G.A.)/PCR vide order No.DE-105/7596-7615/P.Cell(P- V)/Vig., dated 25.07.2012 for completing the same on day to day basis and to submit his findings. The Enquiry Officer completed the same after observing all usual formalities and submitted his finding concluding therein that the charge leveled against the delinquents Inspr. Anil Dureja, No. D-1/651, Inspr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, No. D-2753 and SI Dhananjay Pratap Singh, No. D-1111 is not proved.

I have gone through the findings of the E.O., statements of PWs/DWs/ Defence statements of the delequents as well as other material/record available on DE file. It has been found that the

11

conclusion arrived in Vigilance enquiry seems to be in haste and without proper application of mind. He has failed to appreciate and invoke the provisions under section 134 & 138 of Delhi Police Act, 1978 which given immunity to a police officer from penalty for the action taken by him under the Act in good faith in pursuance of his lawful duties. The Hon"ble Court of MM Saket, Delhi has already taken cognizance of the offences u/s 93/97 D.P. Act, 1978 against the complainant. As such no conundrum regarding jurisdiction of police action against a person, already having a criminal history of five cases in different police stations in Delhi, creating ruckus in police station with the intention to provoke breach of peace, arises. Initiation of D.E. against the police officers on false and frivolous complaints by the persons having criminal antecedents, without judicious application of mind not only makes mockery of the police system but also jettisons the moral of police force due to unwarranted harassments.

Keeping in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances available on record, I am of the opinion that there was no malafide intention, negligence or dereliction in the discharge of their official duties on the part of the delinquents. Thus, I agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and exonerate Inspr. Anil Dureja, No. D- 1/651 (PIS No. 16860075), Inspr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, No. D-2753 (PIS No. 16820042) and SI Dhananjay Pratap Singh, No. D-1111 (PIS No. 16950207) of the charge.

Let all the officers be informed accordingly."

13. Even if there existed any remote possibility of initiating proceedings against the applicant, it stood wiped away with the order of the disciplinary authority dated 10.12.2012. However, the disciplinary authority, against the

12

applicant has chosen to issue the charge memorandum dated 03.01.2013. the statement of imputation against the applicant reads as under:

"STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF

MISCONDUCT OR MISBEHAVIOUR IN

SUPPORT OF THE ARTICLE OF CHARGE

FRAMED AGAINST SHRI MAHIPAL SINGH,

ACP/DELHI POLICE (THE THEN ACP/AMBEDKAR NAGAR, DELHI)

One Sh. Vikas Bakshi made a complaint dated 08.09.2010 before the SHO CR. Park mentioning therein that on 08.09.2010 a confrontation took place between Ms. Nazanin Gheidi, Resident of 53/2, C.R. Park, New Delhi, an Iranian national and Shri Vikas Bakshi, Resident of 52/97, C.R. Park, New Delhi, on the matter of giving passage to the each other"s car in the CR Park. Both being residents of that locality. Shri Vikas Bakshi was travelling in his car alongwith his wife and PSO during the incident. A PCR"s call was made by Shri Vikas Bakshi & his wife and a DD No. 18-A dated 08.09.2010 Police Station CR Park,. Delhi was recorded in the matter subsequently both parties were taken of C.R. Park Police Station. Shri Vikas Bakshi through this complaint has also alleged that he and his wife were asked to undergo the medical whereas Ms. Nazania Gheidi was left by the Police personnel without medical for the obvious reasons (Listed Documents No. 1 & 2) Records show that Sh. Vikas Bakshi made an undated complaint before Lt. Governor of Delhi, which was processed by the office of Lt. Governor, Delhi vide letter dated 04.04.2011. In the said complaint Shri Vikas Bakshi alleged that subsequent to aforesaid incident, he was called in the CR Park, Police Station on 09.09.2010 to enquire about the matter. Shri Vikas Bakshi

13

visited to the CR Park Police Station alongwith his wife and PSO and a kalandra/case under section 91/93/97 of Delhi Police as false and fabricated through the connivance of Police officials i.e. Shri Mahipal Singh, ACP/Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi Police, Shri Anil Dureja, Inspector/SHO CR Park, Delhi Police, Shri Sanjay Singh, Inspector, Delhi Police and Shri DP Singh, Sub-Inspector/IO of the Kalandara matter, Delhi Police, Shri Vikas Bakshi also alleged that he was beaten in the room of SHO PS-CR Park by the Police officials including Shri Mahipal Singh, ACP, Delhi Police (Listed documents No. 3 & 4).

In the said complaint, Shri Vikas Bakshi also alleged that he was called alone in the room of SHO Cr Park Police Station, where Shri Mahipal Singh, ACP/Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi Police, Shri Sanjay Singh, Inspector, Delhi Police, Shri Anil Dureja, Inspector, Delhi Police SHO/CR Park and Shri D.P. Singh, Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police were present. Shri Vikas Bakshi further alleged that Shri Mahipal Singh, ACP/Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi Police started enquiring from Shri Vikas Bakshi about the incident dated 08.09.2010 i.e., quarrel between him and Ms. Nazanin Gheidi and subsequently started beating him through his slipper, while directing Shri D.P. Singh, Sub- Inspector, Delhi Police/IO to thoroughly search Shri Vikas Bakshi and to call the PSO and wife of Shri Vikas Bakshi and to tell them that Shri Vikas Bakshi is being arrested. Shri Vikas Bakshi further alleged that shri Mahipal Singh, ACP/Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi Police also asked his wife to sign on the bail bond while informing that Shri Vikas Bakshi will be let off after his medical examination (Listed documents No. 4) The documents related to the matter show that subsequent to the arrest of Shri Vikas Bakshi U/s 91/93/97 of Delhi Police Act his medical was requested while mentioning that Shri Vikas Bakshi seems to be in the influence of the liquor

14

but the MLC did not find any mention about establishing of the liquor influence, however, in the MLC no fresh injuries were reported. The Kalandra U/s 91/93/97 of Delhi Police Act was prepared by Shri DP Singh Sub-Inspector/Delhi Police against Sh. Vikas Bakshi (Listed documents No. 5 to 10).

The matter of Kalandra came before the Hon"ble Court for hearing in the matter and after going through the contents of Kalandra, the Hon"ble Judge vide correspondence dated 20.09.2011 discharged the accused i.e., Sh. Vikas Bakshi of the Section 91 of the DP Act, at the initial stage itself while intentionally using the word „discharge of the charge while discharging the Section 91 of the DP Act against Shri Vikas Bakshi at the initial stage itself. However, notice was framed by the Hon"ble Court U/s 93/97 of DPO Act against the accused, Shri Vikas Bakshi Listed document No. 12). Records of the matter also show that during the Court proceedings of the matter, Shri Anil Dureja, Inspector Delhi Police the then SHO CR Park on 15.10.2011 and Shri DP Singh, Sub Inspector Delhi Police/IO of the matter on 13.01.2012 has deposed before the Hon"ble Court that on 09.09.2010 in the room of SHO CR Park i.e., during the enquiry of the matter the SHO CR Park noticed something light flickering in the pocket of Shri Vikas Bakshi, which on the repeated query of the SHO CR Park has been denied to by Shri Vikas Bakshi, while stating that there is nothing in his pocket Shri Vikas Bakshi took out a coin of Rs. 5/- from his pocket and said it was all. Again on the insistence of the SHO PS-CR Park Shri Vikas Bakshi said that there was nothing in his pocket subsequent to this conversation SHO PS-CR Park took out an audio-video recorder of 2GB capacity grayish black in colour from the pocket of Shri Bakshi. Subsequent to which Shri Vikas Bakshi got aggressive and started using abusive language to which Shri Mahipal Singh, ACP/Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi Police and Shri

15

Sanjay Singh, Inspector, Delhi Police tried to pacify shri Vikas Bakshi but failed to do so. Subsequently Shri Mahipal Singh, ACP/Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi Police instructed SHO to take action against Shri Vikas Bakshi as per law and subsequently, Shri DP Singh, Sub- Inspector, Delhi Police was directed by the SHO to arrest Shri Vikas Bakshi U/s 91/93/97 of Delhi Police Act for creating the nuisance in the Room of SHO/Police Station, CR Park. Further, „Shri DP Singh, Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police has mentioned that Shri Mahipal Singh, ACP and Shri Anil Dureja, Inspector/SHO CR Park, Delhi Police appointed him the IO of the matter on the spot and through the verbal appointment. Further, Shri DP Singh, Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police was asked to seize the audio-video recorder (Listed document No. 13 & 14). Through the above said details it is evident that the Kalandra U/s 91/93/97 of Delhi Police Act was prepared by Shri DP Singh, Sub- Inspector/Delhi Police against Sh. Vikas Bakshi, in the presence and under the influence of Shri Manipal Singh, ACP, Delhi Police. Subsequent events show that the MLC report of the accused i.e., Shri Vikas Bakshi did not confirm consumption of liquor by the accused and also that he was discharged of the section 91 of the DP Act, at the initial stage itself while the judge intentionally using the word "discharge" in his order to show that the accused was falsely implicated for charge U/2 91 of Delhi Police Act. Afore said position shows that Sh. Mahipal Singh, ACP, Delhi Police failed to act in a fair manner in the matter, instead he abused his powers and influenced the actions of his subordinates, who at his behest and on the his insistence made out a case against Sh. Vikas Bakshi under a section not applicable in the matter.

16

Thus, he said Shri Mahipal Singh, the then ACP/Ambedkar Nagar, by above acts of omission and commission failed to maintain professional integrity and thereby exhibited the conduct unbecoming of a Government servant contravening thereby provisions of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."

14. The language employed in the charge itself is so objectionable that it would virtually persuade an otherwise duty-minded police officer to hesitate before he takes any action against an accused. For the respondents herein, a person with criminal record became highly respectable, whereas the applicant, an ACP, an indisciplined officer, who has abused his powers. There was not even an allegation that the applicant used any physical force or abusive language. Doubt was expressed even as regards his professional integrity. Unfortunately, it is these over-reactions by some of the officers in the administration, who want to be branded as people- friendly, or to get rewarded for punishing their own officers, or to come into limelight.

15. Concern of the Delhi Police vis-à-vis the applicant is reflected in the letter dated 10.04.2015 addressed by the Additional Commissioner of Police, Vigilance. He conveyed the views of the Commissioner of Police. It reads as under:

17

"Sh. Vikas Bakshi had filed a petition in Delhi High court for quashing of Kalandra u/s 91/93/97 D.P. Act against him. He also made complaints to the Central Vigilance Commission and Police Complaints Authority. The Hon"ble High court, Delhi declined to quash the kalandra and noted that cognizance has already been taken by Lt. Metropolitan Magistrate. The Hon"ble Court, however, directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to decide and take action, if any, upon CVC"s letter dated 20/5/2013 and Police Complaints Authority"s letter dated 28^thFebruary, 2013 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of twelve weeks. It was also specifically ordered that while taking a decision, it shall be open to the Commissioner of Police to examine the order dated 10^thDecember, 2012. The final orders of departmental enquiry proceedings issued vide No.11058-70/P.Cell (P- V)/Vig. Dated 10.12.2012 exonerating Inspr. Anil Dureja, No. D-I/651, Inspr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, No. D-2753 and SI Dhananjay Pratap Singh, No. D-1111 were reviewed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi vide No. 8056-72/HA- CVC(VIP)/Vig. dated 6/4/2015 (copy enclosed). It was observed that the Enquiry Officer had afforded reasonable opportunity to Sh. Vikas Bakshi to put forth his submissions during the Departmental Enquiry for proving the alleged misconduct of the police officials. The action of Sh. Vikas Bakshi to carry a hidden camera, apparently for recording the discussions defied any reasonable logic. He had no reason to carry a hidden camera when he had been offered reasonable opportunity to put forth his grievances by inviting him at the Police Station. Records indicated that on detection of the spy camera, Sh. Vikas Bakshi was asked an explanation but he chose to enter into a brawl with the policemen. Booking Sh. Vikas Bakshi u/s 91/93/97 C.P. Act for omission and commission inside the SHO"s room, therefore,

18

was not inappropriate. This conclusion was also supported by the fact that the competent Court has taken cognizance of the matter. In addition, the Hon"ble High Court of Delhi had also declined to strike down the proceedings u/s 93/97 D.P. Act, taken by the competent Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket, New Delhi. Sh. Mahipal singh, ACP (Delhi Police) is facing disciplinary action on more or less the similar set of charges upon which his subordinate officers were departmentally proceeded with and have been exonerated. Apart from this, the trial court has taken cognizance of the action taken by the then SHO/C.R. Park who has also categorically admitted that the directions of ACP were only to take action as per law. Once the action taken by the then SHO/C.R. Park stands proved as bonafide, it will not be in the fitness of things to proceed with departmental proceedings against his supervisory officer Sh. Mahipal Singh, ACP on similar set of charges. The departmental proceedings pending against Sh. Mahipal Singh, ACP are recommended to be dropped.

It is, therefore, requested that the Departmental Proceedings initiated against Sh. Mahipal Singh, ACP may kindly be dropped."

16. Even this did not have any impact upon the Chief Secretary, who passed the order dated 22.06.2015. In the impugned order, the Chief Secretary observed as under:

"AND WHEREAS, the undersigned has carefully considered the representation, submissions made in the personal hearing, records of the case and observes that the two disciplinary proceedings namely one against the subordinate staff and second in the instant case are two separate disciplinary proceedings. The charges,

19

listed documents and witnesses are different. The subordinate officials were exonerated after completing an inquiry. The deposition of witnesses and other evidence to be adduced in the inquiry can confirm if charges are proved or not. The facts and circumstances of these two cases cannot be said to be identical. The decision of one Disciplinary Authority will not be binding to the other Disciplinary Authority. AND THEREFORE, the undersigned is of the opinion that it is necessary to proceed further and inquiry proceedings should be continued to verify the charges leveled against the Charged Officer.

NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned

hereby orders that the inquiry against Shri Mahipal Singh, ACP, Delhi Police are be continued. It is also being enjoined that in view of the court case and time elapsed, the Inquiry in this case is completed in about six months positively, provided the petitioner cooperates with the Inquiring Authority."

17. It is rather unfortunate that the highest officer of the Administration did not take into account the important aspect such as - (a) no mention of any role referable to the applicant in the disciplinary proceedings against the Inspectors and SI; (b) the charge against the very officers who registered the case having been held not proved; (c) not a single witness taking the name of the applicant as being instrumental in getting the case registered; and (d) the ultimate view taken by the disciplinary authority of the Inspectors and SI, and the view expressed by

20

the Commissioner of Police vis-à-vis the conduct of the applicant.

18. Unfortunately, now a days, everybody wants to play safe, unmindful of the fact that the process of their career building would spoil those of others. Had the Chief Secretary bestowed his attention to the basic tenets of the service law or disciplinary matters, things would have been different altogether. Instead of protecting the Administration, he preferred to expose them to penal consequences, all in the process of glorifying a person with voluminous criminal record. Such an approach is prone to demoralize the officials.

19. Of all the Departments, Police, is the one which is required to swing into action, once acts of criminal nature are noticed by them. Once, they are required to be hesitant, lest their careers are damaged, the results would be devastating. He can spend his time at leisure in the armed chair on par with his brothers in the bureaucracy. He can have the ready answer for being inactive by citing example of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, just for the sake of registering an FIR, that too, for an act of misbehaviour right in the Police Station. The poor complainant was forgotten all through, and Mr. Vikas

21

Bakshi became the focal point. The Administration did not hesitate to go to any extent to protect him, and in the process, to offer their own officials as fire-wood. The whole episode is not in good taste.

20. The police official who is subjected to such proceedings may turn out to be successful at the end of the proceedings, or, in one court or the other. However, the damage caused to the victims of crimes in particular, and the society in general, would be immeasurable.

21. We, therefore, allow the OA and set aside the charge memorandum dated 03.01.2013 as well as the order dated 22.06.2015, with the result that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant shall stand closed. Since he retired from service, all the benefits which he is entitled to in law, shall be released within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

( Mohd. Jamshed ) ( Justice L. Narasimha Reddy ) Member (A) Chairman

/as/