Commissioner of Police v. Mahipal

ORDER %

29.07.2013 WPfC)No.4745/2013, 4751/2013 & 4754/2013

¶1The respondent of the three captioned writ petitions face a joint inquiry. A common charge was framed against them to the effect that the three respondents, HC Subhash, Ct.Abhimanyu and Ct.Mahipal were detailed in Beat No.4 PS Bharat Nagar and they failed to report unauthorized construction on the roof of flat No. 195, Ashok Vihar, Phase-IV as also some ongoing construction on the fourth floor of another flat bearing No.209.

¶2The evidence before the Inquiry Officer was the testimony of Insp.Banwari Lai and ASI Krishan Kumar, examined as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively, that they were a part of a vigilance team and that on July 19, 2010 they noted the unauthorized construction on the roof of the two flats and that the construction was on the fourth floor. Through the mouth of HC Govind PW-3 the evidence before the Inquiry Officer was that on July 17, 2010 Ct.Abhimanyu had reported the unauthorized construction but report thereofcouldnot be sentto the MunicipalCorporationofDelhi because 17"^ and 18^'^ July were holidays and that the report was sent to the Municipal Corporationon 19''\

¶3It is apparent that the charge against the three junior level police officials that they did not report the unauthorized construction till it was detected on July 19, 2010 had to fail.

¶4Suiprisingly, the Inquiry Officer noting as aforesaid, returned a finding that the charge was partly proved.

¶5The penalty levied on the three junior level officers has been K "7 quashed by the Tribunal observing that what part of the charge was partly proved has not been brought out by the Inquiry Officer and even before the Tribunal.

¶6Same thing has transpired in court today. In light of the testimony of PW-3 and the documents proved by him that Ct.Abhimanyu had reported the unauthorized construction on July 17, 2010, the question of the charge being partly proved fails.

¶7A feeble attempt was made to argue that the charge actually was of reporting the construction late i.e. by allowing it to reach a stage of near completion. Now, if this was so, the charge had not to be that the three officers did not report unauthorized constructions on the roofs of the two flats. The charge ought to have been that they reported the construction late. If this had been done, the department would be called upon to prove that the constructions which were reported by Ct.Abhimanyu had been permitted to be carried out and the submission of the report was a ruse. The three delinquent police officers would have then been called upon to prove their defence. That apart, from the record we find that the unauthorized constructions were on the fourth floor and consisted of erecting four walls on the terrace to form a room 6' x 10', and this work can be executed by a mason in less than 8 hours. It assumes importance to note that the roofs had not been cast. It cannot be lost sight of that these unauthorized constructions could have only been noticed by Beat Constables once the walls reached a certain height, for only then could the same have been seen from the street.

¶8We dismiss the writ petitions in limine but without any order as to costs. CM No. 10827/2013 in WP(C) No.4745/2Q 13 CM No. 10833/2013 in WPfC) No.4751/2013 CM No. 10837/2013 in WPfC) No.4754/2Q 13 , Dismissed as infructuous. PRADEEP^^^^JOGJ,.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. JULY 29, 2013 rk Page 4 of 4W.P.(C) 4745/2013,4751/2013,4754/2013,

V $-14, 15, 16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4745/2013 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Petitioner Represented by: Mr.V.K.Tandon, Advocate versus ABHIMANYU Respondent Represented by: None. + W.P.(C) 4751/2013 COMMIS SIGNER OF POLICE Petitioner Represented by: Mr.V.K.Tandon, Advocate. versus SUBHASH CHAND Respondent Represented by: None + W.P.(C) 4754/2013 COMMIS SIONER OF POLICE Petitioner Represented by: Mr.V.K.Tandon, Advocate. versus MAHIPAL .... Respondent Represented by: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.