Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Lt. Governor vs Akhileshwar Yadav on 19 July, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Review Application No.172/2010 in Original Application No.252/2008 This the 19th day of July, 2010 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Lt. Governor, Delhi & Others Applicants Versus Akhileshwar Yadav Respondent O R D E R (in circulation) Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Akhileshwar Yadav filed OA No.252/2008 seeking to set aside order dated 20.9.2007 and to direct the respondents to consider his case for grant of out of turn promotion in higher rank treating him at par with his colleagues, namely, HC Nirbhay Singh and Const. Balraj Singh, who were given out of turn promotion. Primarily it was the case of the applicant that his role amongst his team was far more prominent and he as the team leader played a pivotal role in restoring the child to his parents, and yet, whereas other members of the team were given out of turn promotion, he was ignored. With regard to the role played by the applicant as projected by him, there was no dispute. In fact, with the rejoinder the applicant filed a misc. application mentioning therein that the matter for his out of turn promotion was discussed with the Principal Secretary (Home) and Lt. Governor on 27.8.2003 and clarification was sought from Dr. K. K. Paul, the then Spl. Commissioner of Police (Admn.) vide letter dated 29.8.2003 seeking to know whether the applicants role was merely supervisory or he had actively participated in restoration of the child to his parents. The Spl. Commissioner of Police (Admn.) highlighting the position of the applicant with regard to his performance to restore the child, wrote letter dated 18.9.2003 mentioning that the resourcefulness and local contacts of the applicant through whom the information could be developed, led to recovery of the child. It was also mentioned that the investigations were headed by the applicant. We directed the respondents to produce the letter aforesaid, which was indeed produced. The same has been reproduced in our judgment. A reading of the said letter would manifest that the applicant, Incharge of PP Sarita Vihar, was in forefront in recovering the child. We need not reproduce the said letter again. We may, however, mention that it has inter alia been mentioned in the letter that It was entirely the initiative, drive, resourcefulness and local contacts of the SI, through whom the information could be developed and was made use of. Even at the time of the recovery of the child, the SI was himself leading along with the HC and Constable, but the then DCP/South as admitted, had perhaps, acted with a great degree of modesty, and underplayed the matter, but the officer, it is strongly felt, should not be denied his due, and may kindly be considered for an out of turn promotion as and when there is a vacancy in the slot. It would not be out of place to mention that he is currently posted in the Special Staff, South District, and a number of sensational cases worked out in South District which have hit the headlines during the last few years, are attributed to his good work. In para 5 of the judgment we observed as follows:
5. From the pleadings of the parties as also letter dated 18.9.2003 reproduced above, it is quite apparent that the role of the applicant from amongst his team was far more prominent and he, as the team leader, played a pivotal role in restoring the child to his parents. During the course of arguments, counsel representing the respondents could not, on any cogent ground, differentiate the case of the applicant from those forming the team with the applicant and who were given out of turn promotion
2. The respondents in the OA seek review of our order mentioned above. It has inter alia been pleaded that on 11.1.2010, the competent authority after considering our judgment and the legal opinion dated 5.1.2010 of the Government counsel, desired that the case needed to be reviewed by the incentive committee, and that the said committee submitted its report on 15.1.2010 after verifying the factual position/truth of the statements in para 4 (page 5) of the judgment of the Tribunal. The committee scrutinized the copy of the FIR and relevant case diaries and judgment in the kidnapping case. On scrutiny, it is pleaded, the committee found that as per the relevant FIR, the kidnapping took place on 6.3.1998 and a case under Section 365/34 IPC was registered. It was also found that the first case diary written by the applicant (then SI) mentioned that DCP/South District had ordered that after registration of the case, it was transferred to Inspector, Special Staff of South District. Thereafter SI Rajbir Singh had recorded the case diary dated 6.3.1998. It is further pleaded that from the said case diaries the incentive committee found that the case was transferred to Inspector Special Staff, and except for registration of the FIR and recording of a few statements, there was no further contribution of the applicant. It is also pleaded that the rescue of the kidnapee was done by a team led by Inspr. J. S. Malik. The incentive committee submitted its report to the competent authority stating that the applicant did not deserve out of turn promotion. The Commissioner of Police took the view that the applicant did not deserve out of turn promotion and, therefore, felt the need to file an appeal as the decision of the Tribunal ought to have been based on the role attributed to the applicant in the FIR or case diaries and not as reflected in the letter written by the then Spl. Commissioner/Admn. Opinion was then obtained and it was decided to file review application. We are distressed to note that even though, no pleadings were made as regards the role of the applicant, which is sought to be underplayed now, the averment made in the review application is that the decision of this Tribunal ought to have been based on the role attributed to the applicant in the FIR or case diaries and not as reflected in the letter written by the then Spl. C.P./Admn. The letter of the Spl. C.P./Admn. is stated to be perhaps (emphasis supplied) could have been based on a report from the Distt., which may not be entirely of a reliable nature. If the respondents were of the view as regards the role of the applicant as is now sought to be taken, it ought to have been so pleaded in their reply. We have returned the finding with regard to the role of the applicant based upon pleadings as also letter dated 18.9.2003 of the then Spl. C.P./Admn. This letter is now stated to have been perhaps based on a report from the District, which may not be entirely of a reliable nature. There is no positive averment even now that the contents of the letter aforesaid are not correct. Be that as it may, we decided the matter on the basis of pleadings and the relevant documents produced before us. The role of the applicant now ascertained by the incentive committee cannot be taken into consideration in the limited scope of review. Surely, the pleadings are not that an apparent mistake has been made by the Tribunal. The plea rather is that the respondents were remiss in giving correct position to this Tribunal, even though it is said that the applicant had not made correct averments in the OA. If the same were not correct, they ought to have been rebutted.
3. Finding no merit in this review application, we dismiss the same in circulation.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/