Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Const. Balraj Singh No.1651/E vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 16 December, 2008
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI O.A. NO.88/2008 with O.A. NO.110/2008 This the 16th day of December, 2008 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE SHRI SHAILENDRA PANDEY, MEMBER (A) O.A. NO.88/2008 Const. Balraj Singh No.1651/E S/O Nathu Singh, R/O House No. K-177, Shadat Pur Ext., Delhi. Applicant ( By Shri Sachin Chauhan, Advocate ) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range, through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 3. Additional Commissioner of Police, East District, through Commissioner of Police, IP Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. Respondents ( By Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate ) O.A. No.110/2008 Const. Krishan Pal No.1144/E S/O Sukhpal Singh, R/O Village Dhakali PS BB Nagar, District Bulandshahar, UP. Applicant ( By Shri Sachin Chauhan, Advocate ) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range, through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 3. Additional Commissioner of Police, East District, through Commissioner of Police, IP Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. Respondents ( By Shri Ram Kawar, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
By this common order, we propose to dispose of two connected Original Applications bearing OA Nos.88/2008 and 110/2008, as the applicants in both the cases along with others were put to joint departmental enquiry and inflicted with the punishment by common orders passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities. The only question that needs consideration in the present case is as to whether the finding of guilt has come to be recorded on the basis of some evidence, sufficient to hold the applicants guilty of the charges framed against them, or that it is a case of no evidence. In the context of the limited controversy as mentioned above, whereas it is the case of the applicants that finding of guilt has been recorded even though, there is no evidence whatsoever to connect them with the allegations subject matter of charge, learned counsel representing the respondents would join serious issues with the learned counsel for the applicants, and contends that sufficient evidence was available pointing towards the guilt of the applicants.
( Shailendra Pandey ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/