Oa No. 1091/2006. Case: A. A. Farooquee, Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Vs 1. Union of India, Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi; 2. Union of India, Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi; 3. Government of N. C. T. of Delhi, Chief Secretary; 4. Principal Secretary (Home), Government of N. C. T. of Delhi; 5. Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, New Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | Oa No. 1091/2006 |
| Counsel | B. B. Sawhney, M. T. Siddiqui, R. N. Singh |
| Judges | V. K. Bali (Chairman) & L. K. Joshi (Vice Chairman) |
| Issue | Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(2), 13(1)(e), 19(1); Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1947 - Sections 5(1)(e) |
| Judgement Date | March 19, 2009 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
L. K. Joshi (Vice Chairman), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)
-
Mr. A. A. Farooquee, a Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) officer of Delhi, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshdweep, Daman & Diu and Dadar & Nagar Haveli Police Service (DANIPS), the Applicant in the instant Original Application under consideration, is challenging the order dated 10.02.2006, by which the period of his suspension, initially effected by order dated 18.11.2005, has been continued beyond 15.02.2006 for a period of 180 days and subsequent orders by virtue of which he has remained under suspension till date. The various dates on which period of his suspension has been extended have been mentioned in the table below:
S. No Date of order of suspension/ Period of Continuing of suspension Suspension (in days) Suspension with effect from
1 18.11.2005 90 18.11.2005
2 10.02.2006 180 15.02.2006
3 18.08.2006 90 13.08.2006
4 03.11.2006 180 10.11.2006
5 08.05.2007 90 08.05.2007
6 03.08.2007 180 08.08.2007
7 25.01.2008 180 01.02.2008
8 29.07.2008 90 30.07.2008
-
27.10.2008 90 28.10.2008
10 23.01.2009 90 26.01.2009
-
The facts, stated comprehensively, are that the Applicant, an officer of DANIPS, joined Delhi Police as Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) on 05.05.1978. He was promoted to the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) first on ad hoc basis and then on regular basis from 29.04.1987. He has been in the grade of DCP since then. At the time of being placed under suspension, he was working as DCP in the X Battalion of the District Armed Police (DAP). On 5.04.2005, an FIR was registered on oral information against the Applicant by the CBI. The Applicant's house was raided.
-
The CBI, asked the Applicant through the Delhi Police, on 8.06.2005 and 30.08.2005 to fill up information in the prescribed forms I to VI. He was required to give information about moveable and immoveable properties, purchased during the last 20 years by the Applicant and his dependants. The Applicant was not given access to records, which were necessary for filling up the aforesaid forms and which had been seized. He made a request to the Joint Commissioner of Police, requesting him to facilitate inspection of records (Annex-G). When this did not bear any fruit, the Applicant made an application before the learned Special Judge on 20.10.2005 (Annex-I) to allow him access to the records needed for filling up the forms I to VI. The learned Special Judge by his order dated 21.11.2005 permitted the Applicant to inspect the records (Annex-L). Meanwhile by letter dated 26/31.10.2005 the CBI, inter alia, informed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi that the Applicant was not submitting the required information asked by the CBI from time to time (Annex-K). In yet another letter dated 13/14.10.2005, the CBI wrote to the Commissioner of Police that in spite of the lapse of more than six months, the Delhi Police had not given to the CBI the information asked for in the letters dated 5.04.2005 and 20.04.2005 (Annex-H). The Delhi Police was reminded by the CBI even as late as 6.02.2007 about delay in giving information regarding the Applicant's case, asked for by the CBI (Annex T-5).
-
Another fact, which needs to be mentioned at this stage is that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the cadre controlling authority of the Applicant and the first Respondent in the present OA, wrote to the CBI on 25.04.2005, soon after the registration of the FIR on 5.04.2005 against the Applicant, asking if it would be desirable to place the Applicant under suspension in terms of Rule 10 (1) (b) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, as a case against him for a criminal offence was under investigation. The CBI, by its letter dated 13/20.06.2005 replied thus:
The case is under investigation and decision regarding suspension of Shri A. A. Farooquee, DCP, Delhi Police could be taken by the department in accordance with the rules/guidelines of Govt. of India.
On 26/31.10.2005, the CBI wrote to the Commissioner of Police, a communication to which reference has already been made in the previous paragraph. In addition to what is mentioned in the previous paragraph regarding the contents of this letter, it also stated thus:
"3. It is also observed that he [the Applicant herein] is threatening the witnesses directly or indirectly so that they do not depose before CBI. A number of complaints have been received against Sh. Farooquee for alleged threats and harassment from various private persons including a complaint referred from CVC vide No.004-DLH-035/758 dated 4.7.2005 for taking necessary action. Recently, he has been transferred to DAP, 10th Bn., Pitampura. In view of non-cooperation, threatening of witnesses and attempts of tampering with documents by Sh. Farooquee, no substantive progress could be made in the investigation of the case. Thus in the interest of the case, the suspension of Sh. Farooquee is recommended in public interest.
"4. As per the Govt. of India MHA OM No.43/56/64/AVD-I dated 22nd Oct. 1986 and OM No.142/5/84/AVD-I and also CVC's guidelines vide No.000/VGL/70 dated 25.9.2000 and para 2.5, Sec.5 of CVC Manual, the disciplinary authority is fully justified and it is appropriate to place a govt. servant under suspension when in a case where on conducting search it has been found that the govt. servant is in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and it appears prima facie that charge u/s 13 (1) (e) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988 i.e. Sec. 5 (1)(e) of Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1947 is made out. It is also mentioned in para 17 of the "Directive on investigation of cases by the SPE Division of the CBI', that CBI would recommend suspension of employees in appropriate cases.
"5. In view of the above, the immediate suspension of Sh. A. A. Farooquee, DCP, presently posted as Commdt. 10th Bn., DAP, is recommended in the interest of natural justice.
On 18.11.2005, the Applicant was placed under suspension by the MHA (Annex-A). The Applicant filed a representation to the Respondent on 20.12.2005 for reviewing the order of suspension and reinstating him in service. However, the suspension of the Applicant has been continued on the recommendation of the committee constituted to consider continuation of suspension as provided in Sub-Rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
-
On 18.07.2008, during the pendency of the OA, the President of India accorded sanction under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecution of the Applicant. A copy of the document F. No. 14033/08/2008-UTS-II was produced by the Applicant and placed on record. This fact is also mentioned in the order dated 23.01.2009 by which the suspension of the Applicant has been continued for 90 days with effect from 26.01.2009. As seen from the records placed before us by the first Respondent, charge sheet has been filed in the court of the Special Judge, New Delhi on 24.07.2008. The matter was fixed for framing of charge on 23.01.2009, which has been adjourned to March, 2009.
-
In the above backdrop, the order of suspension dated 18.11.2005 and its periodic continuance has been assailed on several grounds by the learned senior counsel for the Applicant. It is stated that the FIR was registered against the Applicant on 5.04.2005, allegedly on oral complaint but actually at the instance of one Mr. Abdul Mannan and Ms. Abida Begum in collusion with Mr. J. K. Jain, Advocate of the above mentioned persons. These persons have dispute regarding some properties, including Batla House property belonging to the Applicant's mother-in-law, who died on 9.12.2003 claimed by the Applicant and his wife and also by these two persons. It is stated that Mr. J. K. Jain is the brother-in-law of Mr. N. K. Jain, an officer of the CBI and the investigating officer in the Applicant's case. It is urged that the F.I.R. was registered at the instigation of Mr. Abdul Mannan and Ms. Abida Begum by Mr. N. K. Jain and raid conducted at the Applicant's house. It is contended that the FIR has been registered in contravention of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme court in State of U.P. Vs. Bhagwat Kishore Joshi, AIR 1964 SC 221, P.Sirajuddin V. State of Madras, 1970 (1) SCC 595 and State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial