PETITIONER: SHRI NAJAMAL HUSSAIN MEHADI Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/08/1996 BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) RAMASWAMY, K. CITATION: JT 1996 (7) 247 1996 SCALE (5)856 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
PATTANAIK, J.
Leave granted.
Though this appeal is directed against the order of the
Administrative Tribunal, Bombay dated 24.3.1994, wherein the
legality of the Government order transferring the appellant
from one place to the other within Bombay and the
consequential direction to vacate the quarter is under
challenge, on going through the materials on record this
Court on being satisfied that a straight forward police
officer was being harassed by his superior officers at the
behest of the proprietor of a hotel and bar issued notice to
the Senior Inspectors Shri Tike and Shri Raghuvanshi, as
well as to the Deputy Commissioner of Police Shri K,
Ramachandran to file their show cause as to why appropriate
strictures should not be made against them. The Court had
also issued notice to the State of Maharashtra to indicate
why government action of imposing penalty and punishment on
the appellant should not be considered to be illegal.
The appellant’s case in nutshell is that as Police
Inspector he was attached to Kurla Police Station in 1976
and had been allotted a quarter in Kurla West in Block No. 2
in the year 1979. Between 1979 to 1990 though the appellant
had been transferred to various Police Stations within
Bombay but his residential quarter remained the same in
accordance with the government policy for allotment of
quarters. In 1990 he was posted at Nehru Nagar Police
Station, Kurla East and near the Police Station lies Hotel
Naina, The said hotel and its proprietor Shri Arun Shetty
was indulging in several illegal acts in flagrant violation
of the rules. Having high connections with senior Police.
Officers no action was being taken against the hotel. While
the appellant was discharging his official duties as
Inspector of Police Nehru Nagar Police Station, Kurla, he
received certain complaints against the hotel and raided the
hotel premises and had also recommended for cancellation of
the licence of the said hotel. The Manager of the Hotel then
lodged a complaint against the appellant making several
false allegations and on the basis of the said complaint the
appellant was fined, which of course, ultimately was set
aside by the Maharashtra Government on an application being
filed by the appellant. To prevent the appellant from
discharging his official duties an order was passed by the
Senior Inspector of Police Shri Tike that the hotel in
question will be checked only by the officers above the rank
of Police Inspector. Shri Arun Shetty, the Manager of the
hotel again made a complaint against the appellant in July
1993 which complaint was referred to Lokayukta. Said
Lokayukta conducted an ex-parte enquiry and after recording
the statements of the senior Inspector of Police and the
Assistant Commissioner of Police who were against the
appellant, a report was given by Lokayukta on the basis of
which the appellant was transferred from Kurla to Bhoyawala
Police Station. The appellant submitted his representation
against the aforesaid transfer but was of no consequence. On
28.12.1993 the Assistant Commissioner of Police asked the
appellant to vacate his quarter by 31.12.1993. The appellant
apprehending dispossession from the quarter filed an
application before Central Administrative Tribunal
challenging the order on the ground of mala fides. The
Tribunal by the impugned order dated 24.3.1994 dismissed the
same and thus this Appeal by Special Leave.
In the meantime, the appellant had filed an application
against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Police
imposing a fine of Rs.100/- and that appeal was disposed of
by the State Government by order dated 23.6.1994. In the
aforesaid order the Appellate Authority came to the
conclusion that there is substance in the points raised by
the applicant that the charge put up against him is with
biased and prejudiced mind and in this matter the then
Senior Inspector of Police, Nehru Nagar Police Station Shri
Tike had played an active role for supporting the hotel
owner. The Appellate Authority further held in the aforesaid
order that though Shri Tike was having note of previous
record of the hotel that Nehru Nagar Police Station had
taken action against hotel for 55 times and vigilance branch
had also raided the hotel on 27.4.1991 for illegal business
still he shielded the person who has no regards for law and
submitted a false report against the officer who had taken
action. This order of the Appellate Authority was passed
subsequent to the impugned order of the Tribunal dated
24.3.1994.
Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court Shri
Vijaysinh Balaramsinh Raghuvanshi filed his show cause
stating therein that after the transfer of Shri Tike he took
over as Senior Inspector of Police, Nehru Nagar Police
Station. He was the Senior Inspector of Nehru Nagar Police
Station from 1.3.1999 to 30.8.1994 and during this period as
many as 13 cases had been filed against the Naina Hotel
owner. It was further stated that he had not submitted any
report to Hon’ble Lokayukta as alleged by the appellant and
in fact one Shri Bobde had submitted a report on the
complaint lodged by Shri Arun Shetty and Lokayukta
recommended to the Police Commissioner to shift the
appellant from the premises to control and minimise the
conflict between the hotel owner and the appellant. He also
denied the allegations of the mala fides and any conspiracy
between him and the hotel owner.
Shri Laxmikant Parvati Tike in his show cause had
stated that he had also taken action against the hotel owner
for keeping the hotel open beyond the stipulated time but on
27.10.1991 one KJA Padmanabh made a complaint against the
appellant for his misbehaviour and ill-treatment in
connection with arrest and detention of Shri Daulat, the
Hotel Manager, for keeping hotel open beyond 0.30 hours on
26.10.1991. The aforesaid complaint was accompanied by
medical reports of Municipal Hospital stating that said
Daulat had suffered mentel harassment and nervous break
down. It was also alleged in the complaint that the Manager
was not released on bail by the officer concerned i.e the
appellant despite the fact they were prepared to deposit
bail amount for offence of keeping open Hotel beyond certain
time. The Senior Inspector, therefore, recorded the
statement of all concerned and submitted his report to his
superiors and he felt that the appellant had exceeded his
function and authority beyond required limits. It was also
stated by Shri Tike in his affidavit that out of the medical
report one could see the seriousness of the treatment meted
out to the accused. Shri Tike also denied the allegation
against him for shielding the hotel Manager and indicated
the action taken by him against the Manager from time to
time. He also denied the allegation that Shri Arun Shetty,
the owner of the Hotel Naina, was very friendly with him.
Shri Bobde, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (security) has
filed his affidavit stating therein that he was incharge of
Zone V from 5th June 1993 to October 10, 1993 and during
that period the complaint lodged by Arun Shetty against the
appellant was pending before the Hon’ble Lokayukta. The
Commissioner of Police discussed the case with him and
assigned the case to him to attend the court behalf of the
Commissioner. The report which he had given before the
Lokayukta merely stated facts and he had not recommended any
action against the appellant. On the contrary, he had given
a report which was in favour of the appellant Shri Mehedi.
So far as shifting of the appellant from his quarter at
Kurla to a quarter at Central Bombay is concerned, Shri
Bobde stated that to avoid any dispute between Shri Mehedi
and the hotel owner and since Shri Mehedi had been
transferred from Kurla, he had suggested that Shri Mehedi
should leave the quarter at Kurla. In fact the report of
said Shri Bobde dated 28.8.93 to Hon’ble Lokayukta,
Maharashtra, which has been annexed as Annexure ‘B’ to his
show cause clearly indicates that he supported the action of
Shri Mehedi and further indicated that the hotel owner was
in the habit of making applications against the Police
Officer with whom he was having grudges. It will be
appropriate at this stage to extract a portion from the
aforesaid report of Shri Bobde:
“It is seen from the application
made by the applicant from time to
time that the hotel was charged in
all 55 times, out of which only 9
times were charged by the P.S.I.
Mehandi and the rest 46 times were
charged by other officers of Nehru
Nagar Police Station. Hence there
is no need for the applicant to
have grudge against P.S.I Mehedi.
It appears that the applicant
is in habit of making applications
against the Police Officer with
whom he is having grudges.”
It is thus clear that Shri Bobde at no point of time
had even suggested any action against Shri Mehandi and the
apprehension of Shri Mehandi is wholly misconceived so far
as Shri Bobde is concerned.
Shri K. Ramachandran, the Deputy Commissioner CID
(Intelligence) who was Deputy Commissioner of time in his
affidavit denied allegations made by the appellant in this
Court. He further indicated that on the recommendation of
Mr. Tike, the then Senior Police Inspector,he had sanctioned
5 rewards to the appellant from 30th August, 1991 to 9th
September, 1991. He had also stated in his affidavit that
record of the appellant revealed that he had been punished 6
times and was reprimanded once for disobeying the senior
officers and now he is posing to be a crusader against
illegality. It was also stated that the enquiry conducted by
Shri Tike clearly revealed the ill-treatment given by the
appellant to Mr. Daulat and Mr. Padmanabha which lead him to
believe that the appellant had really ill-treated Shri
Daulat and Shri Padmanabha and therefore, he issued a notice
to the appellant to show cause why fine should not be
imposed upon him and after considering the appellant’s reply
and finding the same to be unsatisfactory and relying upon
Mr. Tike’s report he awarded the punishment in question. So
far as the episode culminating in the report of Lokayukta is
concerned, Shri Ramachandran stated that he was no where in
the picture as he left Zone V on 5th December 1992 and the
complaint of the hotel owner to the Lokayukta, was made on
21.3.1993. According to him there was no reason either for
him or for Mr. Tike to shield the hotel and was forced to
leave his quarter. The transfer of the appellant from Kurla
is nothing but a mala fide action on the part of the
Appellate Authority and the direction by the Authority to
the appellant to vacate his quarter at Kurla is the outcome
of such malice and the Tribunal, therefore, committed gross
error in dismissing the application. The learned counsel
also urged that the findings of the Appellate Authority,
namely, the State Government while allowing the appeal and
setting aside the order of punishment unequivocally
vindicates the stand of the appellant and in no uncertain
term it has been found that the senior officers have
shielded the illegal acts of the hotel owner and have
imposed the punishment on the appellant with a biased mind.
In the circumstances the learned counsel urged that the
Court should issue strictures against those police officers.
Shri KTS Tulsi, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the State of Maharashtra, on the other hand
submitted, that the records would reveal that the appellant
had been obsessed with the feeling that every senior police
officer has been trying to protect the hotel owner and in
the process the appellant has been harassed. According to
Mr. Tulsi when many police officers like Shri Tike
recommended in favour of the appellant on the basis of which
the appellant was given 5 awards it is difficult to
comprehend that the senior police officer had any animus
against the appellant. The learned Additional Solicitor or
General however, fairly stated that any direction the Court
thinks fit and proper in the circumstances of the case can
be given in the matter of allotment of quarter and the
government would try to accommodate the appellant as far as
possible.
Shri Agrawala, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Tike
and Shri Ramachandran, on the other hand, argued that the
entire allegations made by the appellant against his clients
are out-come of an abnormal mind and according to him the
appellant thinks himself to be the only honest officer while
rest of the world around him are either corrupt or are
trying to shield the hotel owner and in the process the
appellant has been harassed. Shri Agrawala, learned counsel
took us through affidavits filed both by Shri Tike and Shri
Ramachandran and urged that the material on record only
reveals an honest assessment of situation and, therefore, a
senior officer Shri Tike thought that it was not proper on
the part of the appellant to misbehave or illtreat the hotel
Manager while in Police lock-up, According to Shri Agrawala
neither this conclusion is said to be mala fide nor can it
be said that senior officer shielded the hotel owner.
According to Shri Agrawala the appellant is taking advantage
of the findings of the Appellate Authority but the said
findings were not known to either Shri Tike or Shri
Ramachandran and, therefore, no steps have been taken by
them in this regard. The learned counsel urged that in the
facts and circumstances of the case no strictures from this
Court is called for as against the two police officers
particularly when they themselves have booked the hotel
owner on several occasions as indicated in different
annexures and affidavits.
After considering the rival submissions and after going
through the affidavits of different police officers as well
as all other connected and relevant documents on record, we
have no doubt in our mind that Shri Bobde and Shri
Raghuvanshi have not acted either against the appellant nor
have done anything which could give any impression of
shielding the owner of the hotel Naina. At the same time we
have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that Shri Tike,
the senior inspector of police has keen instrumental in
making false and frivolous report against the appellant
which ultimately became the basis for initiation of
departmental proceeding wherein appellant was punished. It
is of course true that in the meantime the State Government
had set aside the orders of all the departmental authorities
and the punishment awarded against the appellant. Shri
Ramachandran though is not directly involved in any way in
pursuing the appellant but he has tried to support Shri Tike
which has emboldened the senior inspector Shri Tike to make
false and frivolous report against the appellant. The mere
fact that Shri Tike had also challenged the hotel owner on
earlier occasions, cannot be a ground to come to a
conclusion that he had not supported the hotel owner as
against the appellant. Similarly merely because of Shri
Tike’s recommendation appellant has been rewarded on some
occasions, it cannot be said that in the instant case there
was no reason for Shri Tike to go against the appellant. The
entire episode emanated from the action of the appellant on
27.10.91 at 1.15 hrs. when it was found that hotel Naina was
still open contrary to the rules. A customer was found
drinking in the hotel and, therefore, the appellant brought
the Manager Shri Daulat to tho Police Station and the action
taken by Shri Mehedi – appellant against the hotel owner for
keeping the hotel open beyond the prescribed time is wholly
justified as has been found not only by Shri Bobde and Shri
Raghuvanshi but also by Shri Tike himself in his report
dated 21.11.1991. But unfortunately Shri Tike in his report
dated 21.11.1991 also stated that the treatment given to the
Manager at the Police Station was disgraceful to the police
department and According to him Shri Mehedi needs to amend
his conduct with public. The aforesaid conclusion of Shri
Tike is supposed to have been based upon the statements
recorded by him of different police officers on receiving a
complaint from the hotel Manager Shri Daulat. We have
carefully considered the statements recorded and to our
utter surprise we could not find a word in any of those
statements which could even remotely support the ultimate
conclusion of Shri Tike that tehri Mehedi at any point of
time had misbehaved with Shri Daulat, the Manager of the
Hotel at the Police Station. On the other hand, records
clearly indicate that Shri Mehedi after bringing the hotel
Manager Shri Daulat to the Police Station and putting him in
lack up left the Police Station immediately. Shri Tike also
in his report indicated that hotel Manager Shri Daulat is an
educated person and hails from a respectable family and,
therefore, the treatment given to him by PSI Shri Mehedi was
horrible. Inspite of our best efforts to find any supporting
materials on the basis of which a man could come to the
conclusion we are unable to find any such material. Even in
the show cause filed by filed by Shri Tike in this Court he
has not indicated what were the materials, available to him
on the basis of which he could reasonably come to the
aforesaid conclusion. The so-called complaint made by the
hotel owner Shri Shetty is also a false one in as much as
the statements recorded by Shri Tike in the course of
enquiry reveal that Shri Daulat was called on to go on bail
by furnishing the necessary bail bond but he refused to go
with the sole object of harassing the appellant who had
brought him from the hotel and put him in the lock up. It
may be noticed that when Shri Daulat had been produced
before the Magistrate no complaint had been made by him of
any ill-treatment. Yet on the basis of the medical
certificate furnished to Shri Daulat by the doctor on
3.11.91 was relied upon by Shri tike to hold that appellant
misbehaved with Shri Daulat. The aforesaid materials
unhesitatingly indicate that Shri Daulat while inside the
police lock up during the night of 27th October,1991
conceived the idea of harassing a sincere and honest
officer, like the appellant and Shri Tike the Senior police
Inspector in promoting the said object of the hotel owner
submitted a false and frivolous report about the so called
ill treatment of Shri Daulat at the Police Station by the
appellant which not only ultimately became the source of
great mental agony and harassment to the appellant but also
was responsible for shifting of the appellant from the
Police Station and ultimately dispossession from his quarter
at Kurla and the entire family including school going
children suffered miserably. When a sincere and honest
police officer is harassed by the senior officers like Shri
Tike at the behest of a wealthy hotel owner, one can well
imagine the mental torture and agony of the concerned
officer. That Shri Tike wanted to shield the restaurant
owner is apparent from the order passed by him on 28.10.91
prohibiting the Inspector of Police like the appellant from
checking the restaurant and only permitting the Senior
Inspector of Police to check the restaurant even if the
hotel contravened the provisions of law and indulged in
nefarious activities. No justifiable reason has been
advanced for passing such order, and to us it appears, that
it was purposely passed to prevent the appellant from
discharging his lawful duties in the matter of checking the
hotel. Shri Ramachandran who was the Senior Police Officer
did not check the correctness of the report submitted by
Shri Tike and on the other hand blindly accepted the same
and pursued the appellant by initiating departmental
proceedings. The materials on record pursuade us to accept
the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant that Shri Ramachandran, the Deputy Commissioner of
Police joined hands with Shri Tike and supported action
taken by Shri Tike against the appellant which ultimately
resulted in serious harassment to the appellant. We really
fail to understand how a senior police officer like Shri
Ramachandran could accept the report of Shri Tike without
verifying the correctness of the facts mentioned therein.
Even the Appellate Authority, namely, the State Government
has found while disposing the appeal filed by the appellant
against the order of punishment –
“the then Senior Inspector of Police, Nehru Nagar
Police Station, Shri Tike has played an active role for
supporting the hotel owner and has shielded the person who
has no regard for law and submitted a false report against
the officer (present appellant) who has taken the legal
action.”
In the facts and circumstances of the present case we
are not in a position to sustain the arguments advanced by
Shri KTS Tulsi, learned Additional Solicitor General that
the conduct of the appellant exhibits a state of mind of the
appellant himself that he is the only honest officer and all
other officers around him are either out to harassing or
supporting and shielding the illegal activities of the hotel
owner. On going through the entire materials on record we
have no doubt in our mind that Shri Tike has pursued the
appellant a Junior officer and by submitting a false report
on nonexistent material has caused enough harassment to the
appellant. The conduct of the Senior Police Inspector Shri
Tike is highly reprehensible and we cannot but condemn the
same particularly when we find that the appellant was trying
to enforce the law but Shri Tike has tried to malign him of
misbehaviour with the Manager of the hotel inside the police
lock up which obviously must have been at the behest of the
hotel owner Shri Shetty and/or the Manager Shri Daulat. The
conduct of the Deputy Commissioner Shri Ramachandran also
cannot but be depreciated in view of his approach to shield
and support the report of Shri Tike without examining the
relevant material and initiating the departmental
proceeding. A departmental proceeding for a government
servant brings untold misery,and in the case in hand not
only the servant concerned was fined and thereby humiliated
in the eyes of his colleagues, friends and relations which
he could vindicate only when the Government set aside the
same in appeal. It is not expected from a Deputy
Commissioner of Police like Shri Ramachandran to blindly
accept the report of Shri Tike without even examining the
statements recorded by Shri Tike in course of enquiry and
had he examined the same, we have no doubt in our wind that
he would not have relied upon the false and frivolous report
submitted by Shri Tike. In the circumstances though we
exonerate Shri Bobde and Shri Raghuvanshi but we condemn the
role of Shri Tike and Shri Ramachandran for having illegally
pursued an honest police officer to protect the interest of
a wealthy hotelier. Our condemnation of these two police
officers should be entered in their respective Character-
rolls which will be a message to other errant police
officers in the organization who would amend their
behaviour.
Notwithstanding our aforesaid direction and
observations, so far as the role of Shri Tike and
Ramachandran is concerned is concerned, we are not inclined
to interfere with the impugned order of the Administrative
Tribunal since the order of transfer of the appellant from
Kurla was in 1993 and 3 years have passed in the meantime.
Besides the transfer in question is within the Bombay city
itself and not to any other place in the, State of
Maharashtra. While we decline to interfere with the order of
transfer of the appellant, we would recommend the Government
of Maharashtra to provide a residential quarter to the
appellant near the place of his posting so that he can
discharge his duties as a police officer faithfully and
sincerely and his family members will not be put to any
further harassment. We are not inclined to issue any
direction to the State to allow the appellant to re-occupy
the quarter at Kurla since some other police officer now
posted at Kurla will be occupying the same and it will cause
a serious dislocation.
With these observations and directions the appeal is
disposed of and the Registry is directed to send a copy of
the order to the Chief Secretary to the Government of
Maharashtra and Commissioner of Police, Bombay for
appropriate action at their end.