Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Hc Phool Singh vs Govt. Of Nctd Through on 3 December, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.4053/2012 This the 3rd day of December, 2012 Honble Shri G George Paracken, Member (J) Honble Smt. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) HC Phool Singh, age 50 years, No. 469/PCR (PIS No. 28824526), S/o Late Sh. Roop Chand, R/o Vill. & P.O. Tauru, District Mewat (Gurgaon), Haryana .Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Govt. of NCTD through, The Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, M.S.O. Building, New Delhi. 2. The Addl. Commissioner of Police, PCR, Through the Commissioner of Police, PHQ, I.P. Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 3. The Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police (GA), PCR, Through the Commissioner of Police, PHQ, I.P. Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 4. The Addl. Commissioner of Police, Vigilance through the Commissioner of Police, PHQ, I.P. Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. Respondents O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri G. George Paracken:
The applicant has filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs:
(i) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 15.2.11 at A-1 and order dated 24.8.12 at A-2 and to further direct the respondents that the forfeited years of service be restored as it was never forfeited and the applicant be exonerated of all the charges with all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion and pay and allowances. The respondents be directed to treat he entire suspension period of the applicant as spent on duty for all intents and purposes.
(ii) To set aside the finding of enquiry officer and the supplementary findings of the EO.
(iii) To further direct the respondents to remove the name of the applicant from secret list of doubtful integrity from the date of inception.
(iv) Any other relief which this Honble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant.
2. In an identical case in Pale Ram & others v. Commissioner of Police & others (OA-4097/2011 with connected cases) decided on 03.12.2012, this Tribunal has allowed the aforesaid case and the operative part of the said order reads as under:-
13. Thus, we are of the opinion that on account of the charge of allegation being vague and not specific, total reliance being placed on CD which was not original, opportunity not being given to cross examine important prosecution witnesses because they were not produced and that no independent witnesses were produced, we find the proceedings conducted against the applicants are not in accordance with the rules and the principles of natural justice. In our view, the respondents have totally relied upon an illegal trap, a CD which has no evidentiary value and proceedings which are not in accordance with the rules and the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders Annexure A-1 to A-3 cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed and set aside. The applicants shall be given all consequential benefits from the date when the punishment was imposed, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. OA is accordingly allowed. No costs. Since this case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, the directions contained in the aforesaid order shall be equally applicable in the present case also.
3. In view of the above position, the present OA is also allowed with a direction to the respondents to comply with the aforesaid directions contained in OA No. 4097/2011 (supra) strictly in the present case as well. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Smt. Manjulika Gautam ) ( G George Paracken )
Member (A) Member (J)
/vb/