Vijay Nath Mishra Vs. DCP (North West), Delhi Police | Case No. 4/ 1724/2017-Wel/CD/3841-42 | Dated:12.01.2018

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 4/ 1724/2017-Wel/CD/3841-42                                  Dated:12.01.2018

In the matter of:

Mr. Vijay Nath Mishra

S/o Parasnath Mishra,

M.B. Road, Shakarpur,

Delhi-110092.                                                                                  .……… Complainant     

                                                                      Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,

North West District,

Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052.                                                              …...…Respondent

 

Date of hearing:           09.01.2018

Present                           Sh. Vijay Nath Mishra, Complainant.

                                          None on behalf of the respondent.

            

ORDER

                The above named complainant, a person with blindness vide his complaint dated 13.07.2017 submitted that  he purchased a plot measuring 150 yards, khasra No. 1030, village Qadi Vihar, Delhi from Sh. Anand Swaroop S/o Sh. Nepal Singh on 28.07.2006.  He also got work done on the plot from time to time.  On 22.06.2017, three unknown persons came to his house.  One of them mentioned his name as Dharmender of Alipur.  He asked him to meet him in the house of Sh. Sudhir Rana with the papers of the plot.  He threatened to kill him if he did not do so.  He wants to do construction work in his plot.  However, he is afraid of those persons.  In June, 2016 one Sh. Jagdish, S/o Sh. Mahender also harassed him and claimed ownership of the plot.  He had filed complaints with S.H.O. (Swaroop Nagar), Delhi.

2.      Reiterating his earlier submissions,  the complainant vide his letter dated 17.11.2017  added that the S.H.O. (Swaroop Nagar), Sh. Bharat Ram Meena did not give much attention to the matter.  The complainant, therefore, requested for an early intervention.

3.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 06.07.2017 followed by reminder dated 16.11.2017.  As there was no response from the respondent, a hearing was scheduled on 09.01.2018.

4.      During the hearing on 09.01.2018, the complainant submitted that the case falls under the jurisdiction of Dy. Commissioner of Police (North West District), Ashok Vihar whereas the notice of hearing has been sent to DCP(North District), Civil Lines.  This probably is the reason why the respondent has not been represented in the hearing.  Reiterating his submissions, the complainant stated that the vigilance enquiry conducted by the PG Cell, North West District has already established that the plot belongs to him.  However, because of insufficient support of Police, he is not able to carry out any kind of construction activity in his plot of land measuring 150 Sq. Yards.  He requested that the DCP (North West) may be advised  to provide police personnel to enable him to carry out some construction work in the plot as Sh. Dharmender threatened him and the concerned police officials do not provide him the required support.

5       From the record it is observed that the vigilance enquiry conducted by Inspector (North West) concluded that the complainant is in possession of plot measuring 150 Sq. Yards bearing khasra no. 1030, A- Block, Qadi Vihar, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi.  ACP, PG Cell, North West  District in his remarks dated 31.08.2017 also recorded that the S.I. Sajjan Singh of Police Station , Swaroop Nagar conducted the enquiry in a lackadaisical manner.  It supports the contention of the complainant that the local Police personnel have not been providing him the required assistance and support.  Complainant also submitted that fed up with the law enforcing agency and the attitude of the members of the society,  he has approached the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court in Rohini for relief.

6.      Section 7 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides for protection of abuse, violence and exploitation of the persons with disabilities and sub-section 4 of Section 7 casts an obligation on a Police Officer who receives a complaint or otherwise comes to know of  abuse, violence or exploitation towards any person with disability to extend necessary support and protection to such a person with disability.  In this regard, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi  vide Circular No. 28/2017 dated 25.10.2017  has directed all the DCPs to take necessary action to make the Inquiry Officers aware of the provisions the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and to ensure its effective implementation. 

7.      Notwithstanding the fact that the complainant has already approached Metropolitan Magistrate Court (Rohini), DCP (North  West), Ashok Vihar is advised to extend necessary support to the complainant to enable him to carry out the construction activity in his plot.  It may also be ensured that the complainant is not harassed, abused, or exploited by any person and his rights are not infringed.

8.      In the light of the above position, the complaint is disposed of.

9.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 12^th day of January,  2018.

           (T.D. Dhariyal )

                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Kaptan Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation | Case No. 4/1743/2017-Wel./CD/3296-97 | Dated: 07.12.2017

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 4/1743/2017-Wel./CD/3296-97                                    Dated: 07.12.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Kaptan Singh,

S/o Ram Chander Singh,

B-2/208, Nand Nagari,

Delhi-110094.                                                                               .……… Complainant     

                                                                          Versus

The Chairman,

Delhi Transport Corporation,

I.P. Estate, Delhi-110002.                                                              …...…Respondent

 

ORDER

                  The above named complainant,  a person with 80% locomotor disability vide his e-mail dated 20.09.2017, informed that he is working at Nand Nagri DTC Depot.  He alleged that his  I.D. Card was spoiled few days ago and he requested for issuing him new I.D. Card,  which was refused.  He also alleged that the employees of the office often harass and intimidate him.  The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide Notice dated 25.09.2017. 

2.               The Depot Manager vide his letter dated 16.10.2017 informed that the Department has taken appropriate action against the erring staff and the complainant has been informed.  A copy of the advice given to the concerned officers namely Asstt. Manager(Admn.), Incharge (Livery) and other employees issued on 04.10.2017 has also been enclosed with the reply. In light of this, the complaint is disposed of.

          Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 7^th day of December, 2017.     

           (T.D. Dhariyal )

                                             State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Om Prakash Vs. Chairman NDMC & Anr. | Case No. 4/634/2014/Wel./CD/ 1755-58 | Dated: 08.09.2017

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 4/634/2014/Wel./CD/ 1755-58                      Dated: 08.09.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Om Prakash

DMS Booth No. 77

Sanatan Dharam Mandir

Laxmibai Nagar

New Delhi-110023                                        ................ Petitioner

                                          Versus                         

The Chairman

New Delhi Municipal  council

Palika Kendra

Parliament Street

New Delhi-110001                                   ………...…Respondent- 1

Asstt. Commissioner of Police(Laxmibai Nagar)

Safdarjung Enclave Police Station

Delhi                                                           ………...…Respondent- 2

Date of Hearing: 28.08.2017

Present:              Sh. Om Prakash, the complainant

Sh. Naheem Ahmed, Sh. Ishwar Singh, Sh. Anoop Singh, Inspectors of NDMC

ORDER

          The above named complainant, a person with 56% locomotor disability vide his complaint received on 22.04.2014, submitted that he was allotted a DMS booth in Laxmibai Nagar, 14 years ago.  There is an NDMC Kiosk close by which was sold out by the original allottee to another person who keeps a variety of goods on the footpath and creates garbage all around.  The complainant also alleged that the said persons abuses him and intimidates him.  His daughter and son-in-law also used derogatory language against the complainant.  He also alleged that the said person has the support of NDMC and the Police.

2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondents vide notice dated 13.05.2014 followed by 08.08.2014 and hearings on 01.07.2014, 30.10.2014, 19.11.2014, 19.01.2015, 23.02.2015, 30.03.2015, 29.04.2015, 30.06.2015, 30.07.2015, 01.09.2015, 01.10.2015, 02.11.2015, 23.05.16 and 29.07.2016.

3.      Respondent No. 1 submitted a copy of sealing MEMO dated 29.07.2015 issued to Sh. Harjeet Singh Ahluwalia and Sh. Mohan Singh (unauthorised occupants of Kiosk No. 56, Laxmibai Nagar). The complainant again alleged harassment by Sh. Satinder Bhati.  Thereafter the Respondent No. 1 was directed to increase frequency of raids.

4.      The Office of Dy. Commissioner of Police, South District vide letter dated 15.11.2016 informed that the Investigating Officer of P.S. Sarojini Nagar seized the articles of Mr. Neeraj Kumar and deposited the same into police stations malkhana.  Beat Constable has been directed to keep the watch and hence no further action was required.  A copy of the report of the Police was sent to the complainant for his comments vide letter dated 09.01.2017.  The complainant vide his letter received on 30.05.2017 inter alia stated that Sh. Satinder Bhati on one pretext or the other tries to harass him.

5.      A copy of the complainant was also received from the office of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities who had received an e-mail from Sh. Gajendra Narayan Karna, regarding case.    

6.      It is observed from the papers in the case file that Kiosk No. 56, at Laxmi Bai Nagar Market, Near DMS Booth was seemingly allotted to  Sh. Harjeet Singh who is stated to have expired.  The shop was being run by him and one Sh. Mohan Singh under some agreement and thereafter by Sh. Satinder Bhati.  As per the report of the Office of the Dy. Commissioner of Police, South District dated 22.11.2016, the said kiosk was being used by Sh. Neeraj Kumar S/o of Sh. Satinder Bhati.  It is however not clear from the available papers in the file whether the current occupants of the said kiosk are the legitimate lease holders or not.

7.      During the hearing on 28.08.2017, the complainant stated that neither Sh. Neeraj Kumar nor his father Sh. Satinder Bhati is the authorised lease holder.  Sh. Satinder Bhati, who according to him, is a DDA employee, continues to sell goods from near his DMS booth and harasses him besides adversely affecting his business.

8.      The representatives of the respondent submitted that they are from the Enforcement Directorate and are responsible for removing any encroachment.  Whenever they receive any complaint either from the complainant or any other person, they remove encroachment as per rules.  This is a continuous practice.  They offered to give the mobile number of the concerned Area Inspector to the complainant who can inform him in case of any encroachment.  As regards harassment, the complainant should report the matter to the police.  They further submitted that the said kiosk no. 56 was sealed and continues as such.  If any person including Sh. Satinder Bhati and Sh. Neeraj Kumar has encroached unauthorisedly, the same will be removed immediately.

9.      The respondents are advised to ensure that the concerned persons as mentioned above do not harass the complainant and adversely affect his livelihood by organising regular vigil of the area.  It is brought to the notice of all concerned that Section 92 (a) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides that,

                    “Whoever,—

(a) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a person with disability in any place within public view shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.” Section 89 of the said Act also provides for “punishment for contravention of provisions of the said Act or Rules or regulations made there under which may extend to ten thousand rupees and for any subsequent contravention with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to five lakh rupees.”  Further, as per Section 7 (4) of the Act, Any police officer who receives a complaint or otherwise comes to know of abuse, violence or exploitation towards any person with disability shall inform the aggrieved person of—(a) his or her right to apply for protection under sub-section (2) and the particulars of the Executive Magistrate having jurisdiction to provide assistance among other things to ensure that the person with disability is protected from abuse, violence and exploitation.

10.    The complainant is advised to approach the concerned Police Officials in case of any harassment.  The concerned Police Officers are advised to ensure that the complainant is not harassed by any person and his rights are not infringed. 

11.    During the last over 3 years, this Court has taken various steps to redress the grievance of the complainant.  The concerned authorities namely, NDMC and the Delhi Police have taken action in accordance with the law and have undertaken to take measures under the relevant provisions of the Act so that the complainant is not harassed.  In the light of this and with above advice, the complaint is disposed of.

12.   Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 8^th day of September, 2017.     

                                                                                     (T.D. Dhariyal)

                     State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Copy to:

The Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disability w.r.t. case No. 6328/1141/2016 dated 04.08.2017.

Arvind Kumar Sharma Vs. CMD, DTC | Case No. 4/ 1606/2017 -Wel/CD/ 577-578 | Dated: 26.05.2017

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 4/ 1606/2017 -Wel/CD/ 577-578                                  Dated: 26.05.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Arvind Kumar Sharma/

Smt. Sudesh Sharma,

WB 118,

Shakarpur, Delhi-110092                                                               .……… Complainant     

                                                                          Versus

The Chairman-Cum- Managing Director,

Delhi  Transport Corporation,

DTC Headquarter,

I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.                                                           …...…Respondent

 

Date of hearing:            16.05.2017

Present                           Sh. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Complainant.

Sh. P.K. Singhal, Dy. Manager (Personnel) and Sh. Raja Ram, Accountant, on behalf of Respondent.

             

ORDER

                   Sh. Arvind Kumar Sharma, a person with 80% locomotor disability filed a complaint dated 25.06.2015 alleging harassment by his Depot Manager Sh. Balraj Singh at Hasanpur Depot. The said complaint, which inter alia related to his deployment in the depot, was disposed of by the then Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide order dated 25.08.2015. The Depot Manager had then informed in writing on 21.08.2015 that Sh. Arvind Kumar Sharma had been deputed in the general office of the Depot on table duty on the seat of LTC claim and specialized Medical Claims of the employees.  After a year, a complaint dated 11.09.2016 from Smt. Sudesh Sharma, wife of Sh. A.K. Sharma addressed to the Office of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities was received through that office vide their letter dated 03.10.2016.   The said complaint  was taken up with the CMD, DTC vide communication dated 10.11.2016 from the same case file No. 3/1033/2015-Wel/CD.  In her complaint Smt. Sudesh Sharma, submitted that her husband had been transferred to Rajghat Depot-I on fabricated administrative grounds under Sh. Balraj Singh who had been harassing him at Hasanpur Depot.   She prayed that her husband be transferred to Hasanpur Depot which was close to her house.

2.               Since this is a fresh complaint it is being assigned a new case number.

3.               The Dy. Manager (Personnel), DTC vide letter dated 06.10.2016 submitted that the complainant was physically and mentally fit and has disability in his hands. He had been making complaints to the Office of Chief Minister, Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and other higher level.  Similar two disciplinary cases were pending against him. In another case, he was warned. The respondent further has submitted that Sh. Sharma had also manhandled  an Assistant Foreman and departmental action had been initiated against him.  Despite these actions, Sh. Sharma had not stopped this type of activities which was vitiating the environment in the Depot. In case he had not been transferred, some untoward incident might have occurred. He was transferred from Hasanpur Depot to Rajghat Depot-I on 17.08.2016. Through another letter dated 13.02.2017, Dy. Manager (Personnel), DTC informed  Sh. A.K. Sharma that his request for transfer from Rajghat I to Hasanpur or East Vinod Nagar cannot be considered with reference to his representation dated 23.11.2016.        Thereafter hearings were scheduled on 23.11.2016 and 22.03.2017. However, the proceedings could not be conducted in the absence of either parties.   Next hearing was scheduled on 16.05.2017. 

4.               On 11.05.2017, the complainant informed that on 01.05.2017, he was asked to take over the charge of Livery Section by Manager(Mechanical).  It  is also mentioned in the letter that Sh. Sharma had asked for the charge of livery section in writing and was directed to make a list of all the items in the livery section for which he has been given an assistant.  It was further stated that in case he had any problem he would be given some other person to assist him. As per the letter he had also  requested to provide him the complete duties as Incharge Livery, he should be given proper training and that it was  not possible for him to make the list of items and take the charge. On 02.05.2017 Sh. Sharma informed Manager(Mechanical) that he had not been provided any assistant fitter.  

5.               On 04.05.2017, the Depot Manager informed him that he had been transferred to Rajghat-I on administrative grounds.  Therefore he cannot be transferred to any other Unit for two years as per the transfer policy.  On the other hand Sh. Sharma had been transferred to East Vinod Nagar Deport on 03.05.2017 by Dy. Manager (PLD), DTC HQ.  On 08.05.2017, the Deport Manager Rajghat-I suspended the complainant based on the report of Sh. Kishan Lal Maurya, Foreman on the ground that on 19.04.2017 & 01.05.2017 Sh. Sharma was deputed to Livery Section but he refused to take over the charge of that section in front of Sh. K.L. Maurya, Foreman and Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Fitter.  The Depot Manager concluded that Sh.Sharma was not interested to do any work.  Sh. Sharma vide his letter dated 11.05.2017 alleged that Sh. Balraj Singh, Deputy Manager was harassing him by suspending him.

6.               During the hearing on 16.05.2017, the representative of the respondent submitted that Sh. Sharma has already been transferred from Rajghat-I to East Vinod Nagar on 03.05.2017.  Personnel Deptt. will pursue the matter with the concerned authorities to get him relieved at the earliest. All his record and pending disciplinary cases will automatically be transferred to the new independent depot authority i.e. Dy. Manager (East Vinod Nagar) and hence his grievance will automatically be resolved. The representative of the respondent also gave a written statement to this effect which was taken on record.

7.               From perusal of records made available by the parties, it is observed that the concerned officer in the respondent’s Corporation was apparently prejudicial to the interest of Sh. Sharma as he was posted to Rajghat Deport-I from Hasanpur Depot under the same Sh. Balraj Singh, Deputy Manager with whom Sh. Sharma’s relations were not at all cordial and Sh. Sharma had complained against him. Transfer of Sh. Balraj Singh to Rajghat Depot-I within 15 days of the posting of Sh. Sharma to that Deport as his superior officer would also seem a deliberate attempt to settle the scores with Sh. Sharma for filing complaints.  The sequence of events from Ist May, 2017 to 08.05.2017, when Sh. Sharma was placed under suspension also go on to point to an attempt to put Sh. Sharma under mental pressure and to  harass him.  It is a common practice that a person handing over the charge gives the list of items to the person taking over the charge.  This was not done in case of Sh. Sharma  as is seen from the letter of Manager(Mechanical) dated 01.05.2017 and letters of Sh. Sharma and his suspension order dated 08.05.2017. The actions on the part of the concerned official seem to be an attempt to implicate Sh. Sharma and then take departmental action against him, which is clear violation of the provisions of the Act and the instructions of Government.  The entire episode for last two years has brought to the fore, a case of insensitivity and a revengeful attitude towards a person with disability which needs to be addressed by the concerned authority in Delhi Transport Corporation.  

8.               It is brought to the notice of respondent that DoP&T vide their OM No. 36035/3/2013/Estt.Res dated 31^st March, 2014 have issued guidelines for providing certain facilities in respect of persons with disabilities who are already employed in Govt. for efficient performance of their duties. The said OM, among other things provides that as far as possible, the persons with disabilities may be exempted from the rotational transfer policy/transfer and be allowed to continue in the same job, where they would have achieved the desired performance. Further, preference in place of posting at the time of transfer/promotion may be given to the persons with disability subject to the administrative constraints. The practice of considering choice of place of posting in case of persons with disabilities may also be continued. To the extent feasible, they may be retained in the same job, where their services could be optimally utilised.          

9.               It is also important to note that Section 89 of the RPwD Act, 2016 provides, “Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act, or of any rule made thereunder shall for first contravention be punishable with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees and for any subsequent contravention with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to five lakh rupees.  Section 92.(a) of the said Act, also provides that whoever intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a person with disability in any place within public view shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.”

10.             In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and a careful examination of the documents made available, it is recommended  that the respondent should personally ensure that the transfer order dated 03.05.2017 in respect of Sh. A.K. Sharma, Fitter is implemented without any delay and that he is not harassed thereafter.  It should also be ensured that the complainant is not posted to work under Sh. Balraj Singh to avoid recurrence of such disputes / complaints. A report be sent to this Court by 5^th June,2017. The respondent is also advised to organize workshops / programmes on rights of persons with disabilities and the issues concerning them for officers and the employees of DTC. The matter concerning grievances of Sh. Sharma be also investigated keeping in view the entire facts including those brought out above and it be ensured that Sh.Sharma is not harassed. He should be allowed to work in a congenial environment.  This Court be informed of the action taken in the matter within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD) Act, 2016.

          

The matter is disposed of accordingly.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 26^th  day of May,2017.     

           (T.D. Dhariyal )

                                                  State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities