Alpna Kumari Vs. SHO Shalimar Bagh Police Station & 4 Others | Case No. 769/1111/2019/03/5513-5518 | Dated:18.09.2019

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

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. 769/1111/2019/03/5513-5518                 Dated:18.09.2019

In the matter of:

Mrs. Alpna Kumari,

HOS, GGSS School (ID-1309024),

Haiderpur, Delhi-110088.                                             ....Complainant

Versus

The SHO

Police Station,

Opposite BH Block,

Shalimar Bagh-110088.                                    ..... Respondent No. 1

The Deputy Director

Directorate of Education,

North West A, BL Block,

Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088.                         ..... Respondent No. 2

The Principal Rani Chennamma SKV,

Near Kushal Cinema, Block-D,

Jahangirpuri Industrial Area,

Jahangir Puri, Delhi-110033.                                     ..... Respondent No. 3

The Deputy Commissioner of Police

Distt.-North West

Police Station Ashok Vihar

New Delhi-110052.                                                     ..... Respondent no. 4

Email: dcp-northwest-dl@nic.in

(impleaded as Resp. No. 4)

Smt. Saroj Devi Chauhan,

D-25, Green Valley Apartment,

Sector 18, Rohini,

Delhi.                                                                   ..... Respondent No. 5

(impleaded as Resp. No. 5)

Last Date of hearing:          16.09.2019

Present:    Ms. Alpna Kumar, HOS, Complainant in person.

                   Sh. Kailash Chand, DDE, Zone-9 for Respondent no.2.

                   Ms. Harbir Kuar HOS SKV Plot No.5, Jahagirpuri for

                   Respondent no. 3.

             

ORDER

          The above named complainant, a person with above 40% locomotor disability vide her complaint dated 25.02.2019 submitted that she is working as HOS in GGSS Haider Pur School of Directorate of Education, District (North West-A).  On 12.09.2018 Mrs. Saroj Devi Chauhan, PGT Political Science ID-200711531 who was earlier working in GGSS Haider Pur School and currently posted in Rani Chennamma SKV, Jahangirpuri School came to her office without any prior appointment for getting her ACR remarks of the previous year i.e. 2016-17 changed from “Good” to “Very Good”.   She advised her to approach her new school where her documents had already been forwarded.  Mrs. Saroj Devi Chauhan created a huge obscene drama and insulted her by saying that I did not know my duties because she is a Head of School with disability. She again went to her office on 23.02.2019 for the same matter without any prior notice / appointment.  The complainant again advised her that all her documents had already been sent to  new school and any action to make changes in her ACR would be taken by the Principal of her current school.  She became furious and started arguing with her.   She behaved in a very rude manner and shouted at the top of her voice and kept insulting her by commenting on her disability.  She even threatened and made derogatory remarks about her and her family.  This caused her mental trauma and damaged her reputation in the school. 

2.      The complainant also forwarded copies of her complaint separately to the SHO, Police Station (Shalimar Bagh), Dy. Director Education (North West –A) Shalimar Bagh, Principal, Rani Chennamma SKV, Jahangirpuri.  Copies of the same were provided by her in response to this Court’s letter dated 11.03.2019.  Thereafter the complaint was taken up with the respondent No. 1, 2 & 3 vide letter dated 29.03.2019 followed by reminders Dated 15.04.2019 and 08.05.2019 seeking action taken report on the complaint. 

         

3.      The complainant vide her letter dated 05.05.2019 informed that no action taken report has been submitted by SHO(Shalimar Bagh).  As there was no response from respondent No. 1 & 2, a hearing was held on 12.07.2019.

4.      During the hearing on 12.07.2019,  the complainant reiterated her written submissions and was highly perturbed and scared about her security in light of the threats, intimidation and humiliation by Ms. Saroj Devi Chauhan.  She also expressed her concern about inordinate delay in taking action against the complainant by the concerned authorities including the SHO who had not even contacted her till the date of hearing.

5.      Smt. Reeta Gupta, DEO Zone IX submitted that after receipt of the complainant, a committee comprising Ms. Harbir Kaur, HOS SKV, Plot 5, A Block, Jahangir Puri and Ms Poonam GSSS, Azadpur to enquire into the matter was constituted.  They completed the inquiry and submitted the report to DD, Zone IX.  The Competent Authority would  consider the same and take necessary action and a report would be submitted to this Court. 

6.      Ms. Anita Bharti HOS RCG, SKV, D Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi-110033 under whom Ms. Saroj Devi Chauhan is working, submitted that on receipt of the complaint, she sought explanation of Smt. Saroj Devi Chauhan.  She was served memos dated 25.02.2019 and 26.03.2019 for leaving the school before time without permission.

 7.     The concern of this Court was conveyed about the SHO, Shalimar Bagh not taking any action on the complaint dated 25.02.2019 of Ms. Alpna Kumari for so long till date despite the fact that the Commissioner of Police, Delhi vide Circular no. 128/2017 dated 25.10.2017 had directed all the Dy. Commissioners of Police to make all the IOs aware about the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 particularly Section 7 which deals with the duties of police officer and the penal provisions for offences committed against persons with disabilities. DCP (North-West), Ashok Vihar Police Station, Delhi-110052 was therefore impleaded as respondent no. 4 with the advice to direct the concerned SHO to take immediate action on the complaint and submit a report within 7 days from the date of receipt of the record of proceeding dated 16.07.2019.  

8.      Section 7 (iv) of the Act provides, “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;

(b)     the particulars of the nearest organisation or institution working for the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities;

(c)     the right to free legal aid; and

(d)     the right to file a complaint under the provisions of this Act or any other law dealing with such offence:

Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed in any manner as to relieve the police officer from his duty to proceed in accordance with law upon receipt of information as to the commission of a cognizable offence.”

          Section 92 of the Act inter-alia provides that whoever,—

“(a) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a person with disability in any place within public view;

(b) assaults or uses force to any person with disability with intent to dishonour him or outrage the modesty of a woman with disability...”

9.      Smt. Saroj Devi Chauhan was also impleaded as respondent no. 5 and was directed to submit her version of the case within 07 days of receipt of the record of proceedings dated 16.07.2019 with a copy of her version to the complainant for filing her rejoinder, if any, within 7 days of receipt of the said reply. 

10.    The parties were directed to also note that under Section 93 of the Act, “they are duty bound to produce or furnish or to answer any question put in pursuance of the provisions of this Act or of any order, or direction made or given thereunder, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs.25,000/- in respect of each offence, and in case of continued failure or refusal, with further fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/- for each day, of continued failure or refusal after the date of original order imposing punishment of fine.”

11.         On the next date of hearing on 12.08.2019, the complainant submitted that she had received the reply dated 16.07.2019 of Smt. Saroj Devi Chauhan, the respondent No. 5.  The members of the enquiry committee met her and the witnesses whose statements were recorded were disclosed to the other staff as intimated by the concerned witnesses, which according to her, was not appropriate.  She had not received any other communication either from the Department or the police till then.   

12.    Smt. Reeta Gupta, DEO, Zone-09 who appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2, submitted an action taken report dated 18.08.2019, as per which the preliminary enquiry was conducted and the report was submitted by the I.O on 10.07.2019.  Based on the showcause notice and the reply received from Smt. Saroj Devi Chauhan, DDE zone-09 had proposed for Departmental proceedings to be initiated against Smt. Saroj Devi Chauhan.  It had also been suggested that till completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the case in this court may be kept sine die. 

13.    As per rule 49.(8) of the Delhi Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018, the State Commissioner shall decide the complaint as far as possible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of notice by the opposite party.  It was therefore not possible to keep the  matter pending until the completion of the Departmental proceedings. 

14.    It was also brought to the notice of respondent No. 2 and all other concerned that the Model Time Limit of six months has been laid down for Departmental Inquiry vide Circular no. 8(1)(g)99(3) dated 03.03.1999 of Central Vigilance Commission which is reproduced below:

Stage of Departmental Inquiry	Time Limit prescribed
·        Fixing date of Preliminary Hearing and inspection of listed documents, submission of Defence documents/ witnesses and nomination of a Defence Assistant (DA) (if not already nominated)	Within four weeks
·        Inspection of relied upon documents/submission of list of DWs/Defence documents/Examination of relevancy of Defence documents/DWs, procuring of additional documents and submission of certificates confirming inspection of additional documents by CO/DA ·        Issue of summons to the witnesses, fixing the date of Regular Hearing and arrangement for participation of witnesses in the Regular Hearing ·        Regular Hearing on Day to Day basis	3 months
·        Submission of Written Brief by PO to CO/IO	15 days
·        Submission of Written Brief by CO to IO	15 days
·        Submission of Inquiry Report from the date of receipt of written Brief by PO/CO	30 days

NB: If the above schedule is not consistent/ in conflict with the existing rules/ regulations of any organisation, the outer time limit of six months for completing the Departmental Inquiries should be strictly adhered to”.

15.    Central Vigilance Commission has also circulated vide its circular dated 18.01.2016, the adverse comments of Hon’ble Supreme Court vide their judgement dated 16.12.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 958 of 2010 Sh. Prem Nath Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi for delay in handling of disciplinary cases. 

16.    In light of the above, respondent No. 2 was directed to conclude the Departmental Inquiry within the prescribed time limit and the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 be kept in view.

17.    As there had not been any response from the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 4, Ms. Vijayanta Arya, DCP (Distt. North West) was contacted on telephone during the hearing and was advised to expedite the enquiry and submit a report before the next date of hearing on 16.09.2019 with a copy of the report to the complainant for her rejoinder, if any.

18.    Smt. Saroj Devi Chauhan reiterated that she had gone to the school for submission of her written representation for upgrading her ACR grading.  As the Head Clerk accepts letters only after the permission of the HOS, she got into a verbal dialogue with the complainant.

19.         On 16.09.2019, the complainant reiterated her written submissions and pointed out that two police officials visited her school for the first time on 13.09.2019 and without inquiring into the matter / meeting anybody in the school, handed over the copy of a note dated 30.08.2019 signed by ACP(Shalimar Bagh) directing SHO, Shalimar Bagh and S.I. Sh. Shekhar (EO) to hand over the copy of enquiry report to complainant as well as pursue the matter on 16.09.2019 and to send the outcome report thereof to ACP for onwards transmission to office of senior officers.   She was handed over the inquiry report dated 16.09.2019 signed by S.I. Sh. Shekhar and SHO(Shalimar Bagh)  outside the Office of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities just before the hearing. 

20.         A copy of the said Inquiry report of the police has also been submitted to this Court which inter-alia says that during the course of inquiry, no independent witness has come forward to give the statement on the matter. They also contacted Ms. Alpna Kumari and mobile numbers of the police staff of PS Shalimar Bagh  have also been given to her for security purpose.

21.         Sh. Kailash Chandra DDE, Zone-9 alongwith other officials appeared and submitted an action taken report dated 16.09.2019 which reads as under :

“A preliminary enquiry was conducted and the report was submitted by the I.O. on 10.07.2019.

          A show cause notice was issue to Smt. Saroj Devi Chauhan, PGT, Political Science (Emp. ID-200711531), SKV, D-Block, Jahangirpuri, vide letter No. F.4/Zone-09/DNWA/11/2019/446 dated 03.08.2019.  The reply has been received from Smt. Saroj Devi Chauhan, PGT, Political Science through HOS of the School on 17.08.2019 vide Reference No. 196.

          Further, on the basis of conclusion in PE, DDE Zone-09 has proposed from Department Proceedings to be initiated against Ms. Saroj Devi Chauhan and sent the file to Section Officer (Vig.) Dte. Of Education, Old Secretariat, Delhi-54.

          Now, the file is returned back with the following observations:

1.    How many times she left office early?

2.    What are corroborating evidences against her?

3.    Comments with supporting documents on the reply to SCN dated 03/08/2019 submitted by her (copy of the letter of Section Officer (Vig.) is enclosed herewith).

The matter is now under process.

Dy. Director of Education,
Zone-IX, District North West-A”

22.    Smt. Saroj Devi Chauhan, respondent No. 5 also submitted her reply vide letter dated 25.07.2019, which reads as under:

“Subject:      Regarding misbehavior and harassment by Saroj Devi Chauhan [PGT (Pol.Sci.) ID-20071153]

Reference: Case No. 769/1111/2019/03/3515-3520 Dated: 16/07/2019

In the above stated matter, reply is as under:

1.    Sir, there was no issue of making drama/ shouting and kind of nuisance of dt. 15/09/2018.  As stated by Mrs. Alpana Kumari in her complaint, if I created any drama on dt. 12/09/2018, she is complaining after five months which is evidently an intentional conspiracy against me.  I am shocked to read the complaint done by worthy Mrs. Alpana Kumari, HoS, Haiderpur.  No subordinate would shout before his/her senior officer till he/she is insulted and made to feel like a slave again and again.  I would like to clarify that all the allegations against me are fabricated, false and totally baseless.  As per my knowledge, there is no need for prior appointment/ information for official work in our own department.  Matter of dt. 12/09/2018 being raised on 23/02/2019 is a sufficient evidence to prove this.

2.    After instructions issued by the Directorate, I simply met Smt. Alpana Kumari for forwarding of my application to Mrs. Harsh Pahwa, Vice Principal for upgradation for my ACR records from ‘good’ to ‘very good’ to my reporting officer for the year 2016-17 but she denied to do the same.

3.    I requested many times to my current Vice Principal, Mrs. Anita Bharti, HoS, SKV Jahangirpuri D-Block to dairy my application but she always denied and asked me to go to my old/paretal school i.e.GGSS, Haiderpur.  They both made a rolling stone out of me.  On 23/02/2019 when the files of other similar cases of the teachers for the same work were being prepared, I requested again to Mrs. Anita Bharti to prepare my file as well but once again she totally refused and told me to go to my old school Haiderpur.  At the time of dispersal of school, I went there and requested Mrs. Alpana Kumari to diary my application.  Not only did she deny to do it but also snatched my papers from my hands and threw them on the floor and shouted at me because she has kept the diary and dispatch register in her custody.  Whatever unparlimentary words have been written in the letter were used by Mrs. Alpana Kumari and not by me.  A teacher cannot use unparliamentary language for her superior like this.

4.    Sir, we teachers have no power to do anything.  I am the victim here.  I also have a question in mind if a senior officer should not have patience to listen to a victim or his/her junior staff sympathetically.  Do I have no right to submit my application to my HoS? Both the HoS clearly refused to take and diary my application in respect to upgradation of my ACR, not only they refused to take my application but also insulted and threatened my as they wanted.  I cannot understand what is my mistake in this matter.  Principals always threat teachers to spoil their ACR’s and my case is a live example of this.  I had worked under the jurisdiction of Mrs. Alpana Kumari since August 2017- April 2018 and I had never disrespected her. Even time to time, I have her lift in my car from school to her residence on humanity grounds.

5.    I also would like to know that on 25/02/2019, I met DD Zone North West-A Distt and my same application was forwarded to the HoS, GGSS, Haiderpur for the needful.  He also told me to go to Haiderpur school for the same work.  So, I went there again and submitted my application and the same has been diarised wide no. HP/GGSS/19/18 dt. 25/02/2019.  After laps of five months, I have no records to trace out the status of my application even after I have called them and mailed them more than three times.  This shows how she because a dictator and how she is misusing her official powers. 

I would like to bring you notice that all these things are disturbing my daily and official life.  Both the principals will be fully responsible if any kind of unfortunate incident happens with me. 

Yours Sincerely,

Saroj Devi Chauhan
(PGT, Political Science)”

23.         Sh. Shekhar, S.I., Shalimar Bagh also appeared personally after the hearing and submitted that he was also required to go to the Hon’ble High Court and  Rohini Court.  He also submitted that he will again try to obtain the statements of the willing staff if any, within a week. 

24.         In view of the foregoing the following recommendations are made:

(i)           As already directed vide RoP dated 22.08.2019, it is recommended that the respondent No. 2 should conclude the  Departmental Inquiry within the  time frame prescribed by Central Vigilance Commission. The provisions of the Act should be kept in mind while inquiring/ examining/ taking action in the matter.  If the Smt. Saroj Devi Chauhan, respondent No. 5 is found to have intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate the complainant or assaulted or used force to the complainant with the intent to dishonour her, the matter alongwith necessary documents be referred to Special Court of Additional Session Judge-02 designated vide Department of Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs Notification No. F.1/19/2018-Judl./Suptlaw/1499-1507 dated 19.08.2019 under Section 84 of the Act having the jurisdiction for trial of offences under the Act.
 (ii)          DCP (North West) should sensitise the police officers and personnel at all levels and aware them about the provisions of the Act. They should take the issues concerning the persons with disabilities seriously and be humane while dealing with them recognising their vulnerability. While writing this order I have received a reply from Ms. Vijayanta Arya, DCP (North West) that she would review the matter.  While I appreciate this and recommend that efforts to collect the evidence be made and the same be provided to the Department of Education promptly.

25.    This Court be informed of the action taken on the above recommendations within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

26.         The complaint is disposed of.

27.         Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 18th day of September, 2019.

             (T.D. Dhariyal)

           State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. DCP Rohini District & 3 Others | Case No. 476/1024/2018/09/2483-2487 | Dated: 28.05.2019

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. 476/1024/2018/09/2483-2487                          Dated: 28.05.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta,

D-1/46, Balvir Bihar

New Delhi-110086.                                                   ..…….Complainant

                  

                                          Versus                           

Deputy Commissioner of Police

Rohini District, Delhi

Bhagawan Mahavir Marg,

Varun Kunj, Rithala,

Rohini, Delhi-110085                                            ........ Respondent No.  1

Joint Commissioner of Police

(Northern Range),

6^th Floor, Police Headquarters,

M.S.O. Building, I.P. Estate,

New Delhi.                                                           ....... Respondent No.  2

Commissioner of Police,

M.S.O. Building, I.P. Estate,

New Delhi.                                                           ........ Respondent No. 3

Sh. Prashant Gupta,

Owner, R.P. Enterprises,

Khasra No. 877, First Floor,

Gali No. 3, Nalla Wala Road,

Rithala, New Delhi-110085.                                   ........ Respondent No. 4

Date of Hearing:       27.05.2019

Present          :           Sh. Arun Kr. Gupta, Complainant

Sh. Pancham Kumar, S.I., P.S. Budh Vihar on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sh. Prashant Gupta, respondent

No. 4. 

ORDER

The above named complainant, a person with 54% locomoter disability vide his  complaint dated 05.09.2018 submitted that he was working for M/s Sharp Eye, R.P. Enterprises, Khasra No. 877, 1^st Floor, Gali No. 3, Rithala, New Delhi-110085 on commission basis for the last one and half years. He resigned on 14.08.2018 and  the owner of the company refused to pay his dues / commission of Rs. 22200/- for the month of July and August, 2018.  The company also used to deduct Rs. 1200/- every month from the amount due to him. He also alleged that he was manhandled and abused by Sh. Prashant Gupta due to which he resigned. He reported the matter to the Police but no action was being taken. He therefore, requested this Court for help in getting his dues amounting  to Rs. 43800/- and appropriate action against the company. 

2.      The complaint was taken up vide Notice dated 11.09.2018 with DCP, North West District, who forwarded the complaint to DCP, Rohini District.  As there was no response and DCP, Rohini District transferred the complaint to DCP, Outer District, a hearing was scheduled on 02.01.2019. 

3.      On 02.01.2019, as none appeared on behalf of the DCP, Rohini District. Jt. Commissioner of Police, Northern Range was impleaded as respondent No.2 vide RoP dated 03.01.2019.  He  was advised to decide the jurisdiction and direct the concerned DCP to take immediate action to provide relief to the complainant and submit a report on or before the next date of hearing on 18.01.2019.

4.      On 18.01.2019 also none appeared on behalf of Delhi Police and therefore Commissioner of Police was impleaded as respondent No. 3 and the matter was scheduled for hearing on 14.02.2019. 

5.      Vide report dated 15.01.2019, Sh. Rajneesh Gupta, DCP, Rohini District informed that matter was  got enquired into through ACP/Rohini/RD.  The owner of R.P. Printer was examined and as per his statement the complainant worked in his company and resigned on 29.08.2018 on personal grounds, which was accepted by the company.  All his dues were stalled,  which were cleared later on. No Dues Certificate had also been obtained from the complainant and no dues were pending as per available written proof provided by the owner of the company.  As per the report, the allegation regarding payment of salary was civil in nature and no cognizable offence was made out and hence, as per him, no police action was warranted.

6.      On the next date of hearing on 15.02.2019, complainant submitted a copy of his rejoinder dated 04.02.2019 in which he  stated that Sh. Prashant Gupta and Sh. Sachin Sharma asked him to work till 05.09.2018.  The company even recharged the complainant’s mobile even on 29.08.2018 and gave him Rs. 500/- for petrol for  which he also gave them the receipt and made an entry in the register.  The complainant also produced 2 sheets of “Paid and DOC Not OK Report” of the said company “Sharp Eye Daily FOS on Field Sales Pick Ups”   for 25.09.2018 and 30.09.2018.  The complainant further submitted that he neither signed any paper about no dues  certificate nor did he submit any typed resignation later on 29.08.2018 produced by the representative of DCP, Rohini  during the hearing.  The complainant  alleged that his signatures had been forged.  Incidentally, Copies of those papers were not enclosed with the report dated 15.01.2019 submitted  by DCP, Rohini.  In view of the statement of the complainant and the evidence submitted by him, it was felt that there was a need for further inquiry into the matter and therefore DCP, Rohini District was advised to personally look into the matter and have it re-investigated and submit a report on or before the next date of hearing on 27.03.2019.  Sh. Prashant Gupta, owner of R.P. Printers was also impleaded as respondent No. 4 and was directed to submit his version of the case.

7.      On 27.03.2019 Sh. Prashant Gupta did not appear despite summons, he was directed to participate and co-operate in the enquiry and ensure his attendance on the next date of hearing failing which this Court would be constrained to take action under Section 82 of the Act for enforcing his attendance.

8.      Sh. Purshotam, Sub-Inspector, Office of the DCP Rohini District, Delhi appeared and submitted a status report dated 26.03.2019, as per which  the matter was again  found to be civil in nature.  It is further stated that Sh. Prashant Gupta was called by  the Vigilance Branch on 22.03.2019.  The complainant was also directed to join the enquiry to verify signature but he did not appear.  Sh. Purshottam added that in case the complainant feels that his signatures have  been forged, the  signatures of the concerned parties would be verified through Forensic Scientific Laboratory (FSL)) and necessary action would be taken.

9.      The complainant was directed to prepare a  statement of the number of SIMs sold by him in the month of July-August’2018 and the payment received by him for the same alongwith supporting documents such as the list of customers and their mobile numbers, bank statement etc.  The Police was directed that payment made to the complainant in cash by Sh. Prashant Gupta  be verified through the documents maintained by M/s R.P.Enterprises.  The signatures of the complainant should  be verified through FSL.  The complainant was also directed to join the investigation when and where he was called and submit the audio recording / CD to the E.O./I.O. in support of his allegation that Sh. Prashant Gupta abused, intimidated, insulted  and assaulted him, who will take action  against the alleged person under Section 92 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 which provides as under:

“ Whoever,—

(a) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a person with disability in any place within public view;

(b) assaults or uses force to any person with disability with intent to dishonor him or outrage the modesty of a woman with disability……….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.    A report on the outcome of the enquiry and the status of the case was sought by  24.05.2019.

11.    The report dated 26.03.2019 of  DCP, Rohini District  is reproduced below:

``This is in continuation to this office Nos. 2440/Complt./(AC-III)/RD dated 15.01.2019, 2597/Complt./(AC-III)/RD dated 31.01.2019 and refer to your office case No.476/1024/2018/09/882 dated 15.02.2019 on the subject cited above, it is to state that during hearing of the above said case, the complainant stated that he neither signed any paper about “no dues” certificate nor did he submit any typed resignation letter on dated 29.08.2018 produced by the representative of the Respondent No.1 during the hearing.  The complainant has alleged that his signatures have been forged.  The Hon’ble Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities has directed to re-investigate the matter and submit a report on or before 27.03.2019 ( date of hearing).

            In this regard, the matter has been got enquired into through ACP/PG/RD.  During enquiry, it was revealed that Sh. Prashant Kumar Gupta runs a company in the name & style “R.P. Enterprises” at Khasra No.877, Rithala, Delhi.  The company supplies mobile Sim Cards to the customers at their houses.  The employee of the company receives Rs.100/- as commission on each delivery.  The statements of Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta (complainant) and Sh. Prashant Kumar Gupta (owner of R.P. Enterprises) were got recorded and other relevant documents were also obtained.  As per the statement of Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta (complainant), he had worked there from 16.04.2017 and resigned from the company on 14.08.2018 but he failed to produce the copy of resignation letter dated 14.08.18 during enquiry by PG Cell.  Moreover, as per his statement, he was not the permanent employee of the said company.  As per the statement of Sh. Prashant Kumar Gupta (owner of R.P. Enterprises), he worked in the said company during the month July, 2018 to 29.08.2018.

            During further enquiry, it also revealed that the complainant had received Rs.3000/- in advance on six times (500x6) from the owner in the month of July 2018.  At that time the total amount Rs.10,600/- of the complainant was due with the company.  Hence, after deduction of Rs.3000/-, the balance amount Rs.7600/- was deposited in his account.  Further on 29.08.2018, when the complainant resigned from his job, the pending due payment amounting to Rs.18,600/- was paid to the complainant in cash.  The entries of the same have been made in the relevant register maintained by the company and the complainant also put his signatures on these entries and receipt of above said amounts.

            Moreover, during enquiry, Sh. Prashant Kumar Gupta, the owner of R.P. Enterprises has clearly disposed that on 29.08.2018, the complainant himself reported to the company office and put up his resignation/no dues letter dated 29.08.2018 and took his balance due amount along with his all the documents which were kept in the company for security.  On the above said documents, the complainant himself made his signature and the same are not forged.

            Further, the allegation of beating levelled by the complainant also could not be substantiated, as the complainant neither made any PCR call in this regard nor gave any written and verbal complaint to police.  However, to verify the signatures of the complainant, the complainant was again contacted on his mobile number 9210313241 on several times to join the enquiry but he did not turn up on any occasion.  In this regard, a DD entry was lodged vide DD No.3 on dated 22.03.2019.  Hence, without the specimen signatures of the complainant, it cannot be concluded as to whether the signatures of the complainant on resignation letter and no dues certificate are forged or not.  Further, a per enquiry report conducted by PG Cell, no cognizable offence is made out.  The same is found civil in nature, as on perusal of his signatures on the various documents, it appears that the signatures on all the papers are same.  However, in case the complainant is not satisfied with the enquiry of this district conducted so far, he may be directed to join the enquiry to verify his signature on the subject.  The copies of all the relevant records/statement into the matter are also enclosed herewith for perusal.

Yours faithfully,

(S.D. Misra)IPS

Dy. Commissioner of Police,

Rohini District, Delhi.”

12.    Inspector Yogendra Kumar, PS Budh Vihar, Delhi  has submitted a status report dated 22.05.2019 which is also reproduced below:

“As per the direction of this Court he called the complainant and asked him to provide the specimen signature and audio recording of the alleged incident upon which complainant stated that he has settled the issue with the alleged Prashant Gupta who assured him to pay his due salary.  The same will be handed over before the Hon’ble Court on the next date of hearing.   Complainant further stated that he will withdraw his present complaint after receiving the due salary.  Till then complainant requested not to proceed legally on his complaint and also denied to provide specimen signature and audio recording.  Further the alleged Prashant Gupta was also interrogated who supported the version of the complainant and assured to hand over the due salary before the Hon’ble Court. 

In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the report in the matter may please be considered accordingly.  Undersign will abide by all the further directions of the Hon’ble Court.”

13.    The complainant and Sh. Prashant Gupta appeared on 27.05.2019 and submitted that they have settled the matter amicably. Sh. Prashant Gupta paid Rs. 26000/- to the complainant.  Complainant stated that his original Aadhar Card is with the company which may be returned to him.  Sh. Prashant Gupta stated that the same is not in his possession. He has been advised to look for it in the company’s record and return the same to the complainant within 3 days of  the receipt of this order.

14.    The facts and circumstances as mentioned above, indicate the need for being more sensitive towards the issues of persons with disabilities, prompt in taking action on their complaints with seriousness.  The law enforcing agencies particularly need to take note of the provisions of the Section 7 and 92 of the Act and be extremely careful in handling their complaints and ensure that their rights are not infringed.  Sh. Prashant Gupta, the respondent No. 4 is also advised to be more sensitive towards the rights of persons with disabilities and do his a bit in creating awareness and sensitising other people in the society.  Section 7 and the extract of Section 92 are reproduced below for information of the concerned:

Section 7. “(1) The appropriate Government shall take measures to protect persons with disabilities from all forms of abuse, violence and exploitation and to prevent the same, shall—

(a) take cognizance of incidents of abuse, violence and exploitation and providelegal remedies available against such incidents;

(b) take steps for avoiding such incidents and prescribe the procedure for its reporting;

(c) take steps to rescue, protect and rehabilitate victims of such incidents; and

(d) create awareness and make available information among the public.

(2) Any person or registered organisation who or which has reason to believe that an act of abuse, violence or exploitation has been, or is being, or is likely to be committed against any person with disability, may give information about it to the Executive Magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such incidents occur.

(3) The Executive Magistrate on receipt of such information, shall take immediate steps to stop or prevent its occurrence, as the case may be, or pass such order as he deems fit for the protection of such person with disability including an order—

(a) to rescue the victim of such act, authorising the police or any organisation working for persons with disabilities to provide for the safe custody or rehabilitation of such person, or both, as the case may be;

(b) for providing protective custody to the person with disability, if such person so desires;

(c) to provide maintenance to such person with disability.

(4) 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;

(b) the particulars of the nearest organisation or institution working for the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities;

(c) the right to free legal aid; and

(d) the right to file a complaint under the provisions of this Act or any other law dealing with such offence:

Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed in any manner as to relieve the police officer from his duty to proceed in accordance with law upon receipt of information as to the commission of a cognizable offence.

(5) If the Executive Magistrate finds that the alleged act or behaviour constitutes an offence under the Indian Penal Code, or under any other law for the time being in force, he may forward the complaint to that effect to the Judicial or Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction in the matter.”

Section 92. “ Whoever,—

(a) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a person with disability in any place within public view;

(b) assaults or uses force to any person with disability with intent to dishonor him or outrage the modesty of a woman with disability……….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.”

15.    The complaint is disposed off.

16.    Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 28^th day of May, 2019.

(T.D. Dhariyal)

State Commissioner for Person with Disabilities