Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Dinesh Papnay S/O Sh. Ganga Dutt vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 23 February, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No. 1827/2008 New Delhi, this the 23rd day of February, 2009 Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman Honble Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman(A) Sh. Dinesh Papnay s/o Sh. Ganga Dutt, Ex-Warder Central Jail, R/o H.No. 521/26, Gali No.5, Vijay Park, Maujpur, Delhi 110 053. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri S.C.Luthra) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through Principal Secretary (Home), Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi 2. 2. Director General (Prisons), Prisons Head Quarters, Near Lajwanti Chowk, New Delhi 110 064. 3. Sh. B.S. Bhatia, Dy. Supdt.-I, C/o DG (Prisons), Prisons Head Quarters, Near Lajwanti Chowk, New Delhi 110 064. Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. Vijay Pandita) ORDER (ORAL) Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman:
Applicant, sequel to regular departmental enquiry initiated against him, has since been dismissed from service vide order dated 22.11.2006 (Annexure A-1). The allegation against the applicant was that he was found in possession of 11 packets of swagat brand tobacco inside the premises of Jail.
2. We need not go into the detailed facts of the case, as it could not be disputed during the course of arguments that the enquiry held against the applicant has number of legal flaws. Learned counsel representing the applicant pointed out certain procedural drawbacks in the enquiry, as mentioned in the Original Application in various paragraphs, i.e., para 4.18 no seizure memo was prepared; 4.20 non-grant of permission to engage Zile Singh as defence assistant for the applicant; 4.28- marking the presence of Rakesh Sharma, presenting officer, on so many occasions when he was not present; 4.31- when the applicant was on sick leave, duly recommended and had even intimated the same, yet he was marked absent; 4.32 disciplinary authority had given some directions to the enquiry officer; 4.35 enquiry officer is said to have received the directions contained in letter dated 28.12.2005; and 4.36two prosecution witnesses were examined in the absence of the applicant.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, respondents have filed their reply.
4. During the course of arguments, Mr. Pandita, counsel defending the respondents, has fairly stated that there are indeed some procedural flaws in the enquiry and the department would conduct de novo enquiry from the stage of serving charge upon the applicant.
5. In view of the discussion made above and the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents, impugned order dated 22.11.2006 is quashed and the applicant would be re-instated in service with all consequential benefits that he may be entitled under the rules. The respondents would, however, be at liberty to proceed against the applicant from the stage of serving charge upon him. The respondents would, in their endeavour, complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today.
(L.K. Joshi) (V.K. Bali) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman /naresh/