Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Prem Chand vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through Chief ... on 6 December, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.325/2010 New Delhi this the 06th day of December, 2010. Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. (Mrs.) Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Prem Chand, Asstt. Superintendent, Jail No.5, PHQ Tihar Jail, New Delhi, R/o B-1, Officers Flats, Tihar Jail, New Delhi. -Applicant (By Advocate Shri M.K. Bhardwaj) -Versus- 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, I.P. Estate, Delhi. 2. The Director General of Prisons, Prisons Headquarter, Tihar, New Delhi. -Respondents (By Advocate Ms. Rashmi Chopra with Shri C.M. Bhardwaj) O R D E R (ORAL) Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J):
Applicant is being aggrieved by an order passed by the respondents on 11.02.2009, imposing upon him a major penalty ending up to the date of retirement on superannuation as well as an order passed on 07.09.2009, where the penalty has been modified. The allegation against the applicant while working as Assistant Superintendent in Delhi Prisons is that on account of his negligence one dreaded criminal has escaped from the custody.
2. Learned counsel of applicant states that the Constable who impersonated has since not been found guilty of the charge in Hari Shankar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., OA No.523/2009, decided on 09.09.2009, which has been upheld by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.2746 on 26.04.2010, no misconduct could be imputed against him. Learned counsel would also contend that in an identical situation in Ramesh Chand v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., OA No.525/2009, decided on 09.09.2009 a similar view has been taken by the Tribunal, which exonerates applicant from any charge, as he has discharged his duties efficiently and it was the responsibility of others to discharge their duties efficiently and diligently, which resulted in escape of a dreaded criminal.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel of respondents would vehemently oppose the contentions and refer to the standing order to indicate that one of the duties of the Assistant Superintendent, i.e., Duty Officer is to ensure that no outsider is taken to the deodhi. As such, finding the applicant guilty of the charge the penalty imposed, as reduced in appeal, is commensurate with the misconduct.
4. In our considered view, appellate authority while acting as a quasi-judicial authority is not to dispose of the appeal on its ipsi dixit but deal with the contentions and pass a reasoned order. Applicant right from the beginning has taken a stand of his non-involvement in the episode and has not committed any misconduct. The above aspect and the testimony of PWs 1 and 6 having not been considered at all, the other grounds raised by the applicant, though the penalty on compassionate grounds was reduced, yet in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & others, 2009 (1) SCALE 286 as well as in G. Vallikumari v. Andhra Education Society & others, (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 406 the order passed in the present form is not maintainable.
5. Accordingly, we partly allow this OA. Appellate order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to consider the contentions of applicant, deal with the same and pass a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We, however, make it clear that since on a pure legal issue we have remanded this case back the penalty if it is at all decided to uphold the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority in all fairness would not deviate from the decision taken in its erstwhile order. No costs.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (Shanker Raju) Member (A) Member (J) San.