Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 5]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Asi (Min.) Shiv Kumar (Pis O.28823642) vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 2 November, 2010

      

  

  

 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI

Original Application No.692/2008

This the 2nd day of November, 2010

HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN

HONBLE SHRI L. K. JOSHI, VICE-CHAIRMAN (A)

ASI (Min.) Shiv Kumar (PIS o.28823642),
R/O 2667/1, Main Bazar, Shadi Pur,
New Delhi-8.							        Applicant
			
(By Shri Anil Singal, Advocate )

Versus

1.	Government of NCT of Delhi through
Commissioner of Police,
	Police Headquarters,
	IP Estate, New Delhi.

2.	Joint Commissioner of Police,
	Crime (W) Cell, Nanak Pura,
	New Delhi.

3.	Deputy Commissioner of Police,
	Crime (W) Cell, Nanak Pura,
	New Delhi.							  Respondents

( By Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate )

O R D E R

Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:

Shiv Kumar, ASI in Delhi Police, was visited with the penalty of forfeiture of two years approved service permanently vide order dated 2.6.2004. The said punishment was enhanced to that of removal from service by the appellate authority vide order dated 21.4.2005. The order dated 21.4.2005 has since been quashed by the Honble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 22.8.2007 in WP(C) No.2936/2007, retaining the earlier order dated 2.6.2004 regarding forfeiture of two years approved service permanently. On 8.11.2007, the applicant was reinstated in service, but the intervening period from 21.4.2005, when the order of removal from service was passed till 8.11.2007, when the order as referred to above was passed, has been decided to be treated as not spent on duty for all intents and purposes on the principle of no work no pay. Primarily, it is the case of the applicant that the period referred to above could not be treated as not spent on duty. The prayer made in the OA is to set aside the orders referred to above and treat the period mentioned above as spent on duty for all intents and purposes, or at least to count the said period as qualifying service for retiral benefits. The applicant also seeks a direction to be issued to the respondents to pay him full pay and allowances for the period referred to above, or at least subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible to him from the date of removal till the date of his reinstatement.

2. Arguments in this case were concluded on an earlier occasion and the judgment was reserved. Vide order dated 19.11.2008 we posed some questions for determination. Learned counsel representing the applicant, as on today, however, contends that the applicant would be satisfied if the detailed representation made by him dated 8.11.2007 is decided by passing a speaking order. We may mention here that the said representation of the applicant has since been rejected vide order dated 12.12.2007, but that contains no reasons, nor meets the points raised by the applicant in his representation. It is in that context the learned counsel states that the applicant would be satisfied if a reasoned order deciding his representation is passed by the respondents. Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned counsel representing the respondents, would not contest the only relief claimed by the applicant as mentioned above.

3. In totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in particular, that the rejection of the representation of the applicant vide order dated 12.12.2007 is by a non speaking order without even adverting to the points raised by the applicant, by simply mentioning that the order of forfeiture of service inflicted upon the applicant has been retained by the Honble High Court, even though by setting aside the order of removal, we direct the concerned authorities to decide the representation of the applicant dated 8.11.2007, and if the same is not found to be having any merit, dismiss the same after recording reasons, after taking into consideration at least such points as may be arguable in the context of the controversy in issue.

4. The Application is disposed of in the above terms, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.

    ( L. K. Joshi )					   	                ( V. K. Bali )
Vice-Chairman (A)				   		         Chairman

/as/