Commissioner of Police v. Harcharan Verma

SANJIV KHANNA, J. kapil

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: 30th May, 2011 % Judgment Pronounced on: June 03, 2011 + WP (C) No. 903/2011 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ..... Petitioner Through: Ms.Nandita Rao, Adv. on behalf of Ms.Veronica Mohan, Adv. Versus HARCHARAN VERMA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. M.M. Sudan, Mr.Vinod Tyagi and Mr.Pushp Gupta, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, the Commissioner of Police has called in question the legal validity of the order dated 6th April, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short "the tribunal") in OA No. 2425/2009 whereby the tribunal has quashed the punishment of censure imposed on the respondent. 2. The brief resume of facts are that a show-cause notice dated 17th March, 2008 was issued to the respondent who was functioning as the SHO, Police Station, Connaught Place at that time. The relevant part of the show-cause notice reads as follows: - "During the inspection conducted at Palika Bazar by the independent sources on 12.03.2008, it has been found that the sale purchase of "Blue" and "X-rated" films on C.Ds was being carried openly in Palika Bazar Complex besides, active solicitation by sales boys was also being done. Pirated CDs and pornographic video CDs were freely available from Rs.35 to Rs.200 per CD in a large number of shops. It shall be the personal responsibility of the SHO/Connaught Place to ensure that no pornographic material is sold in Palika Bazar but he failed to do so, which is a serious lapse on his part. The above act on the part of Inspr. Har Charan Verma, No.D-1/629, SHO/Con. Place amounts to gross misconduct, negligence, carelessness and dereliction in the discharge of his official duties, which renders him liable for disciplinary action under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980." 3. On the basis of the aforesaid show-cause notice, the respondent filed a reply stating, inter alia, that 34 cases under Section 292 of IPC/Copyright Act had been prosecuted by him and the cases were being tried in the courts; that he had written to the NDMC, the authority allotting the shops in the Palika Bazar, for cancellation of allotment of shops peddling obscene material; that there had been raids conducted by the other agenicies of Delhi Police such as the Crime Branch/Special Staff Vigilance Branch in Palika Bazar during his tenure; that he had issued instructions to the officials of the police station to pay special attention to shops selling pornographic material; and that he had taken all steps to stop these kind of activities. 4. The plea of the respondent was rejected and the disciplinary authority passed the following order: - "This plea carries no weight as sale/purchase of CDs of "Blue and "X" rates films was going on openly in Palika Bazar." 5. The respondent being grieved by the order of punishment, the respondent preferred an appeal and in the memorandum of appeal, it was put forth by him that in 30 years of his unblemished career he had won 90 commendation cards/Rolls with cash reward of more than Rs.50,000/- and there was no justification to impose the punishment. 6. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that the show-cause notice was issued in March, 2008 and the respondent-officer had not registered any case under the Copyright Act in 2008. 7. The respondent, grieved by the aforesaid order, invoked the jurisdiction of the tribunal on many a ground. He also produced the documents that had been produced before the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. It also indicated that under the Copyright Act he had registered FIRs o