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,
[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),
6th
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, 1st
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 28th
day of May, 2019.
(T.D.
Dhariyal)
State Commissioner for Person with Disabilities
