Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
H.C. Manohar Lal vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 May, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH : NEW DELHI O.A. NO.797/2008 New Delhi, this the 20th day of May, 2010 CORAM: HONBLE MR. SHANKER RAJU, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. S.P. SINGH, MEMBER (A) H.C. MANOHAR Lal, (PIS No.28822043), R/o 20/E, Police Colony, Model Town-II, Delhi - 9 Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 2. Jt. Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Police Headquarter, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 3. Dr. A.K. Singh, (DANIPS Cadre Group B), Then D.C.P. (Traffic/SR), Through Commissioner of Police, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi 4. D.C.P./Traffic (SR), PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi Respondents (By Advocate: Ms Renu George) O R D E R By S.P. Singh, Member (A):
Applicant, H.C. Manohar Lal, No.492/T (PIS No.28822043) was proceeded against in a departmental enquiry on the allegation that on intervening night of 23/24.07.2006 while posted in Hauz Khas Traffic Circle and detailed for night duty at Aya Nagar Border was found indulging in malpractice by demanding and accepting Rs.100/- and Rs.50/- as entry money from drivers of HTVs No.RJ-14GA-4681 and HR-47A-8598. Inquiry was initiated on the basis of PRG Cell and on examination of PWs and DWs, the inquiry officer recorded the following findings:-
From the evidence that came on file, facts and circumstances the charge against the defaulter H.C. Manohar No.492/T stands proved.
2. Representation to the inquiry report culminates into order passed by disciplinary authority on 25.7.2007 whereby the punishment of forfeiture of one year approved service permanently has been imposed upon the applicant entailing reduction in his pay Rs.4815/- to Rs.4730/- respectively and treatment of his suspension period from 10.08.2006 to 06.09.2006 as not spent on duty. When appealed against, an order passed on 06.02.2008 rejected the appeal.
3. Learned counsel of the applicant submitted that present is a case of no evidence and the applicant has been held guilty by the disciplinary authority on a charge of connivance with the other Police officials in demanding and accepting bribe, which was not the charge levelled against him. As such, without giving him an opportunity either to rebut or to defend the charge, the punishment imposed upon him is contrary to Rule 16(ix) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. It is also stated that the claim of the applicant was well taken before the appellate authority, yet the same has not been considered by a speaking order. He would also contend that present being a case of no misconduct and no evidence, the inquiry report has not been a reasoned one. Inquiry officer has not recorded reasons as mandated under Rule 16 (ix) of the aforesaid Rules to come to the conclusion of guilt.
4. On the other hand, respondents counsel has vehemently opposed the contention and stated that in the order passed by the disciplinary authority, it is clearly recorded that it is logical and rational in the circumstances when the PRG team constituted under Inspector Rajinder Singh on the direction of ACP-Traffic (PRG) was present at the place and one of them takes bribe, he would have shared the bribe, which is a valid presumption in law to be drawn. As such, recording of the findings by the disciplinary authority is on the basis of presence of Police officials and for which punishment imposed is apt in law as well as proportionate to the charge.
5. We have heard the learned counsels of the parties, gone through the materials available on record and considered the rival contentions of the parties.
6. We find that the facts of the present case are entirely similar and identical to the facts in OA No.2264/2008 (Ct. Gyanender Singh vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors) decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 11.05.2009 which has been subsequently upheld by the Honble High Court of Delhi on challenge in Writ Petition (Civil) No.2626 of 2010 decided on 20.04.2010. The present case is also covered by the facts in OA No.94/2007 (H.C. Rohtas Singh vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi) decided by the Tribunal on 30.06.2009 and upheld by Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.152/2010 on 12.1.2010.
7. In the circumstances, following the decisions in the aforesaid cases, OA is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Consequences in law to ensue. No costs.
(S.P. SINGH) (SHANKER RAJU) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) /pkr/