Delhi High Court
Azad Singh Bhardwaj vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 August, 2006
Author: Manmohan Sarin
Bench: Manmohan Sarin, Aruna Suresh
JUDGMENT Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Petitioner by this Writ petition, assails the order dated 10.11.2000 passed in O.A. No. 2298/1999 and O.A. No. 2441/1999. By the impugned order, the O.As filed by the petitioner were dismissed. OA No. 2298/1999 relates to an incident of 15.1.1996 where the petitioner had been censured for being slack on duty and for writing while sitting on a sofa. The matter was taken in appeal and revision departmentally when the punishment of censure was meted out and confirmed vide orders dated 14.3.1998 and 11.11.1996. The challenge to the revisional order in OA No. 2441/1999 was dismissed as barred by limitation.
2. O.A. No. 2441/1999 relates to an incident of 19.3.1994 in which the petitioner had been meted out the punishment of censure. The allegation was that the petitioner being the SHO, did not take care and ensure that the MLCs were collected in the road accident case. It is further claimed that MLCs were not collected for extended period. The petitioner's explanation in this case was that he was on leave on the date of the incident, i.e., 19.3.1994 and as such, could not ensure the MLC being collected the same day. Petitioner further contends that no action had been taken against the I.O. and the Additional SHO, who were on duty on the said date. Besides, the main plea raised by the petitioner is that his neurological condition, following a serious accident while on duty on 6.3.1994, prevented him from discharging his duties in an efficient manner during the relevant period. It is the petitioner's case that following the accident on 6.3.1994, petitioner had suffered head injury affecting his speech involving deficient memory and recall. It is the further case of petitioner that on account of these disabilities, doctors recommended that petitioner be assigned light duties. Mr.Bhardwaj urged that when a person is suffering from neurological defects, as a part of rehabilitation and recovery, it is necessary that he is not put on bed rest and rather is assigned light duties for his optimum recovery and rehabilitation.
3. The other incident referred to, relates to being found sitting on sofa and making entries thus exhibiting slackness on duty, is sought to be justified on the ground of medical condition.
4. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner firstly sought to raise a technical objection regarding the disposal of two different appeals against two censures by a common order. We do not find any illegality in the Tribunal's order as the punishment concerned the same individual and was of censure and there is no legal bar in dealing with two O.As in the same order when common pleas also arise. Accordingly, this contention has no merit and is rejected.
5. The second limb of Mr. Bhardwaj's submission is that there were two other censures, which appear at pages 44 and 46 of the paper book. The respondent adopted a compassionate approach and the censures were quashed in departmental hearings, taking note of the petitioner's medical condition.
6. We have been taken through the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has, after considering all the pleas, come to the conclusion that the respondent had adopted an objective approach inasmuch as wherever the petitioner was found slack, he was pulled up by award of censure and wherever he had performed and done commendable work, he had been issued Commendation Certificates. Further, that they had even adopted compassionate approach as is apparent from the acceptance of the explanation for censures, which were quashed as appearing at pages 44 and 46. The Tribunal has held that it is not its function to re-appreciate the evidence and admittedly in these cases, the petitioner was found to be slack and in dereliction of duty.
7. We have been taken through the medical record of the petitioner as produced before the Tribunal. We find that undoubtedly, following the incident of March, 1994, wherein the petitioner suffered serious head injury, the petitioner was suffering from defective memory and diplopia, i.e., getting two images of a single object by looking on left side. The medical certificates recommended his assignment on light duties for specified periods.
8. We are of the view that the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal holding that it was not sitting as an Appellate Authority and could not re-appreciate the evidence as done in the departmental proceedings, cannot be faulted with especially within the parameters of judicial review for this Court. Considering the overall profile of the petitioner, the medical deficiencies being faced by him and the recommendation for light duties, warranted a compassionate approach and greater understanding. This is not to undermine, in any manner, the desirability of maintaining optimum efficiency and discipline in the Police force and the respondents taking such steps as may be warranted in that regard.
9. We are informed that in any case, the effect of a censure under the standing order issued by the respondent is for a limited period of six months and that period has since long expired. Mr. Tandon has referred to a circular issued by the Joint Commissioner of Police, Headquarters bearing No. A-1/12(6)98-SPL/7931-8030/CB-1, dated Delhi, the 07.02.2005, which inter alia provides that officers who may have been awarded censure can be allowed to be brought on promotion list. The effect of censure debarring the official for promotion is only for six months from the date of award. In the instant case, the censure had been awarded as far back as 1996 and the period is long over. As such, Mr. Tandon submits, in accordance with the departmental instructions, the censure will not effect the petitioner's promotion or future prospects.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations.