Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Sub­Inspector In Delhi Police vs Union Of India on 11 December, 2009

    IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL.
 DISTRICT JUDGE­13: CENTRAL DISTRICT: DELHI

CS No. 129/2007

Ranbir Singh (PIS No. 28720112)
Sub­Inspector in Delhi Police,
R/o 56­J, Police Colony
Model Town, Delhi
                                     ..... Plaintiff

                            VERSUS
1.   Union of India
     Through its Secretary 
     Ministry of Home Affairs
     North Block, New Delhi

2.   Commissioner of Police,
     Police Head Quarters,
     IP Estate, New Delhi

3.   Joint Commissioner of Police
     Headquarters, PHQ,
     IP Estate, New Delhi.

4.   Deputy Commissioner of Police
     Headquarters (Estt.), PHQ,
     IP Estate, New Delhi

5.   Deputy Commissioner of Police
     Central District, 
     Dariya Ganj, Delhi.

6.   SI Pratap Singh
     Then HAP Central District
     As on 29.6.2005
     D.C.P Office Central District
     Dariya Gunj, Delhi


                               1
 7.     ASI Ram Bilas
       Then Dealing Clerk
       As on 29.6.2005
       HAP Branch Central District
       D.C.P. Office Central District
       Dariya Ganj, Delhi
                                                          .........Defendants


Date of Institution:                        16.11.2007
Arguments Heard on:                         17.11.2009
Date of Decision:                           11.12.2009


                        ­: J U D G M E N T :­


              This   suit   for   damages/   compensation   of

Rs.5,40,000/­   has   been   filed   by   the   plaintiff   Ranbir   Singh

against   the   defendants.     Briefly   the   facts   relevant   to   the

disposal of the same are as under:



BRIEF FACTS:

Plaintiff's Case:

The case of the plaintiff is that he is a Sub­ Inspector in Delhi Police who has been performing his duties honestly and sincerely and without any complaint since his appointment. It is pleaded that the defendant No. 5 is the 2 disciplinary Authority of the applicant who is a part and parcel of the defendant no. 2 and the defendant nos. 3 & 4 were the members of Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion of ASIs to the rank of Sub­Inspector constituted by the defendant No. 2 and they also assist the defendant No.2 in his working in the Police headquarter; the defendant No. 1 is the cadre controlling authority of the defendant No. 2 to 5; the defendant nos. 6 & 7 are/ were working under the defendant no. 5 at the relevant time.
It is pleaded that the plaintiff was promoted as Sub Inspector (ad­hoc) w.e.f. 1.1.2004 vide Order dt. 1.1.2004 and his name was admitted in the Promotion List E­1 w.e.f. 21.10.2004 vide Order dt. 1.11.2004 and on successful completion of Upper School Course his name was admitted to Promotion List E­11 w.e.f 28.6.2005 vide order No. 44012 dt. 29.6.2005. Though the name of the plaintiff was admitted to the Promotion List E­11 w.e.f. 28.6.2005, the decision with regard to his regular promotion as Sub Inspector was illegally and with malafide intention decided to be taken after finalization of non­existent criminal case pending against him 3 vide order No. 44114 dt. 29.6.2005 passed by the defendant No. 4, though the juniors to the plaintiff were promoted.

According to the plaintiff, the order No. 44114 dt. 29.6.2005 was passed by the defendant No. 4 on the basis of wrong and false/misleading information sent by the office of the defendant no. 5 vide letter dt. 14.6.2005 which was prepared by the defendant No. 6 & 7 in order to harass the plaintiff who were having grudge against the plaintiff. It is pleaded that the plaintiff was reverted also from the post of Sub Inspector (ad­hoc) to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector vide notification dt. 28.6.2005 but he was actually reverted and informed about the same vide order dt. 5.8.2005, passed by the office of the defendant no. 3, when the plaintiff was re­ posted as Assistant Sub Inspector in Central District with the defendant No. 5. It is further pleaded that a disciplinary enquiry was also illegally and with malafide intention in order to harass the plaintiff ordered against him vide order dt. 7.7.2005 passed by the defendant no. 5 and the plaintiff was served with the summary of allegations on 25.10.2005 but when nothing incriminating could be found against the 4 plaintiff, he was finally exonerated vide order dt. 12.9.2006. Further, while not­promoting the plaintiff as Sub Inspector on regular basis w.e.f. 29.6.2005 and reverting him from the post of Sub Inspector (Ad­hoc) the defendants illegally and with malafide intention did not take into consideration that neither any criminal case was pending against the plaintiff nor any disciplinary enquiry was pending against him as on 29.6.2005. On 21.9.2005 the plaintiff submitted a representation against his non­promotion vide order no. 44114 dt. 29.6.2005 as Sub Inspector on regular basis to the defendant no. 5 and to provide the details of the alleged criminal case pending against him. It is alleged that the defendants no.6 & 7 illegally and with malafide intention in order to harass the plaintiff mentioned on the representation dt. 21.9.2005 that a Preliminary Enquiry was shown to be pending against him by the CBI in their report though no criminal case FIR has been registered against him but still he was not promoted to the post of Sub­Inspector on regular basis in order to further harass the plaintiff. It is further stated that despite the fact no criminal case/ FIR was registered against the plaintiff, he was 5 illegally not promoted as Sub Inspector on regular basis w.e.f. 29.6.2005 though criminal case can be stated to be pending against a person only when an FIR has been registered and charge­sheet has been filed. In a case which has not been finally disposed off and departmental enquiry can be said to have been initiated only after the Summary of Allegations has been served. Therefore, the plaintiff was left with no alternative except to approach the Hon' ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi for redressal of his grievances by filing O.A No. 2299/2005, which grievances were partly taken care off vide Order/ Judgment dt. 17.8.2006 whereby the impugned order was set aside and the defendants no. 2 to 4 were directed to re­ consider promotion of the plaintiff on regular basis on the post of Sub Inspector w.e.f. 29.6.2005 and in event of promotion consequential benefits would ensue.

Pursuant to the said judgment dt. 17.8.2006, the plaintiff was finally promoted w.e.f. 29.6.2005 vide order dt. 26.9.2006 passed by the defendant no. 4 but again illegally and with malafide intention in order to harass the plaintiff, it 6 was ordered that the plaintiff is granted notional promotion in the order rank of Sub Inspector (Ex.) for the period from 29.6.2005 to 19.9.2006 and he would not be entitled for any arrears of pay and allowances for this period though the plaintiff is entitled to be promoted on regular basis w.e.f. 29.6.2005 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances.

According to the plaintiff, due to the illegal reversion from the post of Sub Inspector (ad­hoc) and non­ promotion on regular basis as Sub Inspector (Exe.), he suffered great mental tension and agony. On account of this depression, not only the plaintiff but his family members also suffered the mental agony and torture in the hands of society at large particularly in front of his juniors who became his senior due to the illegal reversion and non­promotion from 5.8.2005 to 26.9.2006. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, he suffered serious set backs in both his private and professional life in addition to the other sufferings. It is pleaded that the Order No. 44114 dt. 29.6.2005 whereby the decision with regard to his regular promotion as Sub Inspector 7 was illegally and with malafide intention decided to be taken after finalization of non­existent criminal case pending against him was on the basis of the noting and other material supplied/submitted to the defendants No. 3 & 4 through defendant no. 5 by the defendants No. 6 & 7 who were inimical to the plaintiff who refused to honour their illegal demand and therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff was illegally not promoted on regular basis as Sub Inspector (Exe.), but was rather reverted without any just and reasonable cause though ultimately the plaintiff was to be promoted promotion as Sub Inspector (Ex.) on regular basis w.e.f. 29.6.2005. As per the allegations, not only the defendant No. 6 & 7 are responsible for illegal reversion of the plaintiff from the post of Sub Inspector (Ad­hoc) and regular promotion to the post of Sub Inspector w.e.f. 29.6.2005 to 26.9.2006 but the defendant no. 3 to 5 are also equally responsible for not verifying the information submitted by their juniors and mechanically passing the order no. 44114 dt. 29.6.2005 deciding not only, not to promote the plaintiff though his juniors were promoted but also reverting the plaintiff to the 8 post of Assistant Sub Inspector. It is alleged that the plaintiff was illegally reverted and not promoted on regular basis as Sub Inspector (Exe.) due to indifferent attitude of the defendant nos. 3 to 7 working under defendant nos. 1 & 2. According to the plaintiff, the aforesaid action of the defendants not only affected the reputation of the plaintiff for which the plaintiff is claiming the damages/ compensation on account of the following:

1. On account of mental agony/anguish, harassment and humiliation the plaintiff suffered from 5.8.2005 to 26.9.2006 when he had to work under his juniors and obey their commands.
2. Because the plaintiff was not able to face his friends and family after being reverted as if he had committed some offence for which he was punished.
3. Since the plaintiff had to face an illegal Department Enquiry initiated vide Order dt. 7.7.2005 that was initiated only to deprive the plaintiff from his lawful promotion and further to punish him.
9
4. On account of depression and tension caused by the enquiry ordered vide Order dt. 7.7.2005 to the plaintiff in which he was ultimately found innocent.
5. Since the plaintiff had to suffer loss of pay and allowances of the promotional post of Sub Inspector for the period from 29.6.2005 to 19.9.2006.
6. As the plaintiff had to incur expenses to file and pursue O.A No. 2299/2005 in Hon' ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi for quashing of reversion order and for getting his due promotion.

It is further stated that the defendant No. 1 being the cadre controlling authority of defendant nos. 2 to 7; the defendant no. 2 being the head of the Delhi Police; the defendant nos. 3 to 5 being the seniors and in charge of the defendant nos. 6 & 7 and the defendant nos. 6 to 7 being the real offenders/culprits are also joint and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/­ for the losses of his progressive future, mental pain and agony as mentioned in Para 14 above along with interest @ 12% p.a. 10 from the date of the Legal Notice up to the date of realization.

It is pleaded that the plaintiff sent a notice dt. 4.1.2007 under section 80 CPC on 5.1.2007 by Regd. Post with A.D. to the defendants through his advocate calling upon the defendants to pay damages in the form of compensation for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/­ to the plaintiff along with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the date of the Legal Notice up to the date of realization despite which no payment has been made by the defendants. The plaintiff is claiming interest also on the compensation from the date of the Legal Notice dt. 4.1.2007 up to the date of filing of this suit @ 12 % per annum which comes to Rs.40,000/­ making the total liability of the Defendants at the time of filing of this suit to Rs.5,40,000/­ for which he has filed the present suit.

DEFENDANT'S CASE:

The case of the defendant is that Sub Inspector (Exe.) Ranbir Singh, No. 3449­D was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector (Exe.) w.e.f. 4.4.1994 and his name and one other HC was brought on Secret List of Doubtful Integrity 11 w.e.f. 26.8.94 vide order dated 14.9.1994, on allegations, that on a vigilance enquiry made on the complaint of Sh. Satpal Singh S/o Gulzar Singh R/o H.No. 560, Pocket­J, Sector­16, Rohini, Delhi, it has been found that they arrested one Sh. Karnail Singh under DP Act on 4.7.1994 with malafide intention. They also kept their SHO in dark about this pursuant to the same a departmental enquiry was also initiated on the same allegations vide order dated 10.11.1994. However, he was exonerated in departmental enquiry vide order Dated 22.7.1996. His case for declaration of probation period with his counterparts was considered but period with his counterparts was considered but kept pending on administrative grounds vide order dated 22.8.1996. His name was removed from Secret List of Doubtful Integrity w.e.f. 22.7.1996 by DCP/Vigilance vide his order dated 26.5.1998.

his probation period was declared successfully w.e.f. 4.4.1997, after extending one year due to his name remained on Secret List of Doubtful Integrity, vide order dated 2.9.1998. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff was promoted to the rank of Sub Inspector (Exe.) w.e.f. 01.01.2004 12 alongwith others for a period of six months or till such time a regular panel is drawn for promotion list E­1 (Exe.) and the officers become available for regular promotion after having been successfully completed the Upper School Course, which ever is earlier, on purely temporary completed the Upper School Course, which ever is earlier, on purely temporary and ad­hoc basis under Rule 19 (i) of Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980, vide Police Head Quarters Order No. 203­303/CB­II, dated 1.1.2004. It was clearly mentioned in the order that they will not be entitled for any right of regular appointment or seniority for appointment to such or any other equivalent post and shall be liable for reversion without any notice and without assigning any reason. The ad­ hoc promotion shall be discontinued from the date when the promotee is declared medically unfit for promotional training course or he denied from undergoing the prescribed training course along with his batch­mates or he fails in the promotional training course. His ad­hoc promotion was further extended for a period of six months w.e.f. 1.7.2004 vide order dated 7.7.2004. According to the defendant, the 13 name of the plaintiff was admitted to promotion list E­I (Exec) w.e.f 21.10.2004 in terms of Rule 16 (i) of Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980 vide notification dated 1.11.2004 and deputed for undergoing upper school course training at PTC w.e.f. 3.1.2005. On successful completion of Upper School Course, Service particulars and report regarding pendency of DE/PE/Cr. Case/Department Enquiry list was asked vide PHQ's under order dated 24.5.2005 to give them regular promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector (Exe.). After admitting their names to promotion list E­II. The service particulars of plaintiff were sent by this office i.e. DCP/Central District vide his letter dated 14.6.2005 intimating that a Crl. Case no. PE/DAI/2004­A­0015, CBI, AC Branch dated 27.4.2004 is pending against him. On successful completion of upper school course his name was admitted to promotion list E­II (Exe) w.e.f. 28.6.2005 and the same was circulated to him through his supervisory officer vide endst. No. 1820­45/Estt., dated 6.7.2005 vide notification dated 29.6.2005 but he was 14 not given regular promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector (Exe) due to pendency of Crl. Case against him as intimated by this office i.e. DCP / Central District, his ad­hoc promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector (Exe) was not extended further after 31.12.2004 and was deemed to be discontinued w.e.f. 1.1.2005 due to pendency of Crl. Case vide notification No. 43659­760/CB­II, dated 28.6.2005.

The defendants have also stated that the plaintiff submitted a representation which was sent to Police Head Quarters from their office DCP / Central District vide memo No. 29798/CR­I/Central, dated 30.9.2005 wherein he had stated that no criminal case was pending against him. The matter was again clarified from SP/CBI AC Branch, New Delhi who has intimated that no criminal case PE/DAI/2004­ A­0015, CBI, AC Branch, dated 27.4.2004 shown earlier against him was on the basis of report of CBI in which recommendation was made for major penalty to the officer. Therefore, a departmental enquiry was initiated vide order No. 5682­93/HAP­AC­II/C, dated 7.7.2005 against the Sub Inspector on the same allegation that while posted at operation 15 cell, North District, Maurice Nagar, Delhi (during the period from 27.7.203 to 15.5.2004) he was entrusted the investigation of case FIR No. 347/03 U/s 420/468/471/120­ B/34 IPC, PS Kashmere Gate Delhi, dated 27.7.2003 registered against Sh. Vivek Gaur and Gaurav Khosla. During the investigation of the aforesaid case on 9.3.2004 Sub Inspector Ranbir Singh went to the residence of Sh. V.K. Chaudhary S/o Sh. Dhara Singh, R/o H. No. 198/15, Ramesh Market, East of Kailash, New Delhi - 65 and brought him at Operation Cell, Maurice Nagar, Delhi. He was examined, where his specimen signatures and specimen writing were obtained. It was also alleged that Sub Inspector Ranbir Singh demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1.50 lakhs from Sh. V.K. Chaudhary and threatened him that in case the bribe amount is not paid to him, he will be implicated in the theft of vehicles when Sh. V.K. Chaudhary started recording the conversation in a cassette held between him and Sub Inspector Ranbir Singh and requested him to reduce the amount. On 27.04.2004, Sh. V.K. Chaudhary lodged a complaint in CBI/ACB/New Delhi against the plaintiff alleging that he is 16 demanding bribe of Rs.1.20 Lakhs from him for not implicating him in case FIR No. 347/03 registered against Sh. Vivek Gaur and Gaurav Khosla at PS Kashmere Gate, Delhi and also to help him in getting anticipatory bail. He did not want to give the bribe and sought legal action against Sub Inspector Ranbir Singh. He also handed over the cassette containing the conversation recorded by him on his telephone. In order to verify the allegations, PE­DAI­2004­A­0015 was registered on 27.04.2004 at CBI/ACB/New Delhi and the recording was made in the presence of independent witnesses which confirmed the demand of bribe by the Sub Inspector. A CBI team was constituted which proceeded near the office of the plaintiff alongwith Sh. V.K. Chaudhary and both the independent witnesses as agreed to by him. After reaching near the office of the Sub Inspector, Sh. V.K. Chaudhary and independent witnesses Sh. Mange Ram were directed by the trap laying officer to proceed in front of the office of the Sub Inspector and call up the plaintiff requesting him to meet in front of his office. The plaintiff insisted on his coming inside his office but Sh. V.K. Chaudhary showed his 17 unwillingness to go inside the office and the matter was deferred for a day or two. It is stated that Sh. V.K. Chaudhary produced the recorded conversation to CBI Office and the CFSL confirmed the voice of Sub Inspector Ranbir Singh plaintiff in the recorded conversation. Sh. V. K. Chaudhary was finally arrested by him when he got suspicious about Sh. V.K. Chaudhary and it was alleged that the plaintiff was trying to obtain the illegal gratification of Rs.1.20 lakhs from Sh. V.K. Chaudhary for not arresting him in the said case and he did not arrest Sh. V.K. Chaudhary on 9.03.2004 when there were grounds and no fresh grounds emerged after that.

According to the defendants, the name of the plaintiff was also brought on agreed List of Doubtful Integrity w.e.f. 20.07.2005 for a period of one year vide order dated 27.07.2005. Another department enquiry was also initiated against the Sub Inspector (plaintiff) vide order dated 06.09.2006 on the allegations that while being posted in the Spl. Staff/Central District on 27.09.2004 he did not take appropriate action in a case FIR No. 511 dated 27.09.2004 U/s 489­A, 489­B, 489­C IPC, PS Darya Ganj. Consequently, the 18 accused were discharged by Ld. ASJ on 10.03.2006 at the charge stage. The department enqiry dated 07.07.2005 was filed vide order dated 12.09.2006, as the allegations for asking illegal money from the complainant for not making his arrest could not be substantiated. It is pleaded that the plaintiff filed a representation dated 21.09.2005 against not giving promotion but without waiting the decision of his representation he filed the OA NO. 2299/2005 under the title Ranbir Singh Vs. GNCT Delhi & Others in the Hon' ble CAT. Vide Judgment dated 17.08.2006 the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal partly allowed the OA. Accordingly in pursuance of judgment dated 17.08.2006 he was promoted to the rank of Sub Inspector (Exe) w.e.f. 29.06.2005 with national promotion in the rank of Sub Inspector (Exe) for the period from 29.06.2005 to 19.09.2006 vide order dated 26.09.2006. It was clearly mentioned in the order that during this period, he was not entitled for any arrear of pay & allowances in the rank of Sub Inspector (Exe.) but his period was, otherwise, count towards increments and seniority etc. 19 According to the defendants, the plaintiff is not entitled for pay and allowances of national promotion period as per FR­17 as the Sub Inspector did not perform duty in the rank of Sub Inspector during this period. It is further stated that the name of the Sub Inspector was again brought on Agreed List of Doubtful Integrity w.e.f. 27.09.2006 on the allegations of Departmental Enquiry dated 06.09.2006. However, the department enquiry dated 06.09.06 was filed vide order dated 06.08.2007. It is pleaded that Sub Inspector (Min.) Partap Singh, No D­62 was not even posted in Central District, whereas the plaintiff has shown him posted as HAP/Central District On 29.06.2005 and in fact he reported in Central District on 21.09.2005 and remained posted as HAP/Central District From 20.10.2005 to 17.07.2007 as per record.

A preliminary objection has been raised by the defendants to the effect that the present suit is not maintainable in view of the fact that no notice as required under Section 140 of Delhi Police Act has been served and that the suit is otherwise bad as the plaintiff has not obtained any sanctions before filing the present suit from the competent 20 authority. It is further stated that the present suit is bad for mis/rejoinder of necessary parties as CBI is a necessary party in the present suit and is liable to be dismissed and also that no cause of action ever arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

On merits, the defendants have denied all the allegations made against them.

ISSUES FRAMED:

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, this court has vide order dated 1.5.2008 framed the following issues:
1. Whether the suit is not maintainable as no Notice under Section 140 of the DP Act has been given and no sanction has been obtained? (OPD)
2. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of the necessary party in view of the fact that CBI has not been impleaded? (OPD) 21
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of damages/ compensation as asked for in the suit? (OPP)
4. Relief.

EVIDENCE:

In order to prove his case the plaintiff Ranbir Singh has examined himself as his sole witness as PW1 and in his examination in chief by way of affidavit he has corroborated what has been earlier stated in the main plaint. He has placed on record the various documents including the official communication which are collectively Ex.PW1/A. It may be clarified that the plaintiff PW1 was recalled for additional examination for purpose3s of specifically exhibiting the documents which were not earlier exhibited separately. Copy of the order dated 1.1.2004 is Ex.PW1/A­1; Copy of the order no. 44012 dated 29.6.2005 is Ex.PW1/A­2; Copy of the order no. 44114 dated 29.6.2005 is Ex.PW1/A­3; Copy of the letter dated 14.6.2005 is Ex.PW1/A­4; Copy of the order dated 5.8.2005 is 22 Ex.PW1/A­5; Copy of the order dated 12.9.2006 r/w Order dated 6.10.2006 is Ex.PW1/A­6; Copy of the representation dated 21.9.2005 is Ex.PW1/A­7; Copy of OA No.2299/2005 is Ex.PW1/A­8; Copy of reply to said OA is Ex.PW1/A­9; Copy of the judgment/ order dated 17.8.2006 is Ex.PW1/A­ 10; Copy of order dated 26.9.2006 is Ex.PW1/A­11; Copy of notice u/s. 80 CPC dated 4.1.2007 is Ex.PW1/A­12; Copy of postal receipts are Ex.PW1/A­13; Copies of five AD cards are Ex.PW1/A­14 and Copy of the letter dated 20.2.2007 is Ex.PW1/A­15.
In rebuttal the defendants have examined Addl. DCP Prem Nath, Central District as DW1 who has in his examination in chief by way of affidavit corroborated what has been earlier stated in their written statement. FINDINGS:
I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the counsels for both the parties and have gone through the records of the case. My findings on the various issues are as 23 under:
Issue no.1 Whether the suit is not maintainable as no notice under Section 140 of the DP Act has been given and no sanction has been obtained?
Onus of proving this issue was upon the defendant. The defendant has raised a preliminary objection that no notice under Section 140 of the DP Act has been given nor any sanction was obtained and therefore, under these circumstances the suit filed by the plaintiff is bad. It is an admitted case of the plaintiff that he has not given any notice under Section 140 of the DP Act. The plaintiff has, however, given a notice under Section 80 CPC which is Ex.PW1/A­12, postal receipt of which are Ex.PW1/A­13. The said notice has been given to the Union of India, Commissioner of Police (PHQ), Joint Commissioner of Police (PHQ), Deputy Commissioner of Police PHQ), Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central District), Sub Inspector Pratap Singh and Assistant Sub Inspector Ram Bilas.
24

The object of giving a prior notice under Section 140 of the DP Act is to given the Delhi Police an opportunity to reconsider the legal position. The legislative intent being that public money and time should not be wasted on unnecessary litigations and the government and public officers should be given a reasonable opportunity to examine the claims made against them least they be drawn into avoidable litigation.

The plaintiff before this court has also given a detailed notice to all the defendants. Mentioning of the wrong Section of law will not be prejudice to the case of the plaintiff. Merely because the plaintiff has not mentioned the notice to be Under Section 80 CPC will not effect the validity of the said notice which fulfills the legislative intent. I have gone through the notice, which is an exhaustive notice giving details of the disputes raised and also the cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiff. Further the Ministry of Home Affairs had also pursuant to the aforesaid notice sent a communication to the Deputy Commissioner of Police HQ Sh. H.M. Meena specifying that Ministry of Home Affairs is a 25 performa party and the DCP (HQ) should take necessary action under intimation to the Ministry, which communication is Ex.PW1/A­15. The defendants before this court have only examined Sh. Prem Nath, Addl. DCP (Central District) who in his affidavit of evidence reiterated the objection of the defendants regarding the non compliance of the provisions of the DP Act. I may observe that in so far as the provisions of Section 140 (2) of DP Act are concerned it specifically provide that in the case of an intended suit on account of such a wrong which has been committed by an officer in the colour of duty or authority, the person intending to sue shall give to the alleged wrongdoer not less than one months' notice of the intended suit with sufficient description of the wrong complained of and if no such notice has been given before the institution of the suit, it shall be dismissed. Further, Clause 3 of Section 140 DP Act provide that the plaint shall set forth that a notice as aforesaid has been served upon the defendant and the date of such service and shall state what tender or amends, if any, has been made by the defendant and a copy of 26 the said notice shall be annexed to the plaint endorsed or accompanied with a declaration by the plaintiff of the time and manner of service thereof.

In the present case, there has sufficient compliance of the aforesaid provisions of Clause 2 and 3 of Section 140 of the DP Act by the plaintiff who has given a prior notice to all such officers details of which have been stated herein above alongwith the postal receipts showing the proof of their service. Also in his plaint in paragraph 19 the plaintiff has set forth the details of the legal notice and the service thereof. Merely because the plaintiff has mentioned the wrong provision of law and has in the title mentioned Section 80 CPC and not Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, this in my considered opinion not cause any prejudice to the case of the plaintiff since the object and intent of the legislature has been duly taken care of and the procedure provided duly complied with. I find no merit in the objection raised by the defendant. Issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

27 Issue no.2 Whether the suit is bad for non­joinder of the necessary party in view of the fact that CBI has not been impleaded?

Onus of proving this issue was upon the defendant. The case of the defendant is that the suit is bad for non­joinder of CBI who has not been impleaded as necessary party whereas according to the plaintiff, the CBI is not a necessary party since it had never informed the defendants that an FIR has been registered against him or any criminal case is pending against the plaintiff. The case of the defendant in their written statement is that the office of the Commissioner of Police has been informed by the DCP Central District vide his letter dated 14.6.2005 that a criminal case bearing no. PE/DAI/2004­A­0015, CBI AC Branch dated 27.4.2004 is pending against the plaintiff. The defendant has not brought any material on record that a criminal case has been registered against the plaintiff by the CBI, rather it is the plaintiff who has placed on record the material to show that it was only a preliminary inquiry which had been initiated by CBI AC Branch which was later on closed and at no point of 28 time any criminal case was pending against him and no FIR was registered till date. The defendants having failed to place on record any material to show that any criminal case has been registered against the plaintiff by the CBI I hereby hold that the CBI is not a necessary party more so as no relief has been sought against the CBI, the defendant no.1 being the Cadre Controlling Authority of the plaintiff with other defendants being its officers with which the CBI has no concern. Therefore, the non impleadment of CBI is not necessary. Issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue no.3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of damages/ compensation as asked for in the plaint?

Onus of proving this issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has approached this court in the present suit seeking damages and compensation to the tune of Rs.5,40,000/­ on the ground that he had been promoted as Sub Inspector (ad­hoc) w.e.f. 1.1.2004 vide order dated 1.1.2004 29 and his name was admitted to Promotion List E­1 w.e.f. 21.10.2004 vide order dated 1.11.2004 and on successful completion of Upper School Course his name was admitted to Promotion List E­11 w.e.f 28.6.2005 vide order No. 44012 dated 29.6.2005. It is argued that though the name of the plaintiff was admitted to the Promotion List E­11 w.e.f. 28.6.2005 but the decision with regard to his regular promotion as was illegally and with malafide intention decided to be taken after finalization of non­existent criminal case pending against him vide order No. 44114 dt. 29.6.2005 passed by the defendant No. 4 though the juniors to the plaintiff were promoted. It is alleged that the order No. 44114 dt. 29.6.2005 was passed by the defendant No. 4 on the basis of wrong and false/misleading information sent by the office of the defendant no. 5 vide letter dt. 14.6.2005 that was prepared by the defendant No. 6 & 7 only to harass the plaintiff who were having a grudge against the plaintiff. It is submitted that the plaintiff was reverted from the post of Sub Inspector (ad­hoc) to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector vide notification dated 28.6.2005 but he was actually reverted and 30 informed about the same vide order dt. 5.8.2005 passed by the office of the defendant no. 3 when the plaintiff was re­posted as Assistant Sub Inspector in Central District with the defendant No. 5. It is further argued that a disciplinary enquiry was also illegally and with malafide intention in order to harass the plaintiff ordered against him vide order dt.7.7.2005 passed by the defendant no. 5 and the plaintiff was served with the summary of allegation on 25.10.2005 but when nothing incriminating could be found against him, he was finally exonerated vide order dt. 12.9.2006. Further, while not­promoting the plaintiff as Sub Inspector on regular basis w.e.f. 29.6.2005 and reverting him from the post of Sub Inspector (Ad­hoc) the defendants illegally and with malafide intention did not take into consideration that neither any criminal case was pending against the plaintiff nor any disciplinary enquiry was pending against him as on 29.6.2005. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has further pointed out that on 21.9.2005 the plaintiff submitted a representation against his non­promotion vide order no. 44114 dt. 29.6.2005 as Sub Inspector on regular basis to the defendant no. 5 and requested 31 them to provide the details of the alleged criminal case pending against him. It is submitted that the defendants no.6 & 7 illegally and with malafide intention mentioned on the representation dt. 21.9.2005 that a Preliminary Enquiry was shown to be pending against him by the CBI in their report though no criminal case FIR has been registered against the plaintiff but still he was not promoted to the post of Sub­ Inspector on regular basis which was only to further harass him. It is also argued that no criminal case/ FIR stood registered against the plaintiff but he has illegally not promoted as Sub Inspector on regular basis w.e.f. 29.6.2005 though criminal case is pending against a person can be concluded only when an FIR has been registered and charge­ sheet has been filed but the case has not been finally disposed off and Department Enquiry can be said to have been initiated only after the Summary of Allegations has been served. It is also argued that the plaintiff was left with no alternative except to approach the Hon' ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi for redressal of his grievances by filing O.A No. 2299/2005, which was partly 32 allowed vide Order/ Judgment dt. 17.8.2006 whereby the impugned order was set aside and the defendants no. 2 to 4 were directed to re­consider promotion of the plaintiff on regular basis on the post of Sub Inspector w.e.f. 29.6.2005 and in the event of promotion consequential benefits would ensue.

It is further argued by the Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff that the judgment dated 17.8.2006 was implemented and the plaintiff was finally promoted vide order dated 26.9.2006 passed by the defendant no.4 but in order to harass the plaintiff it was ordered that the plaintiff was being granted notional promotion in the rank of Sub Inspector (Ex.) for the period w.e.f. 29.6.2005 to 26.9.2006 and he would not be entitled for any arrears of pay and allowances for this period though the plaintiff was held entitled to be promoted on the regular basis w.e.f. 29.6.2005 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances. The plaintiff is now claiming damages for the mental tension, agony and depression caused to him and his family for having suffered torture in the hands of the defendant when his juniors were promoted as his seniors and 33 also on account of the illegal reversion and non promotion w.e.f. 29.6.2005 to 29.6.2006.

Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant has vehemently argued that the plaintiff is not entitled to any compensation in respect of FR­17 since he has never performed his duty in the rank of Sub Inspector during the period w.e.f. 29.6.2005 to 29.6.2006 and therefore, he would not be entitled to any arrear of pay and allowances in the rank of Sub Inspector (Ex.). According to the defendant, the plaintiff was promoted to the rank of Sub Inspector (Exe.) w.e.f. 01.01.2004 alongwith others for a period of six months or till such time a regular panel is drawn for promotion list E­ 1 (Exe.) and the officers become available for regular promotion after having been successfully completed the Upper School Course, which ever is earlier. This was on purely temporary and ad­hoc basis under Rule 19 (i) of Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980, vide Police Hdqrs. order No. 203­303/CB­II, dated 1.1.2004. It was clearly mentioned in the order that they will not be 34 entitled for any right of regular appointment or seniority for appointment to such or any other equivalent post and shall be liable for reversion without any notice and without assigning any reason. It was also provided that the ad­hoc promotion shall be discontinued from the date when promotee is declared medically unfit for promotional training course or he is stopped from undergoing the prescribed training course along with his batch­mates or he fails in the promotional training course. In the present case the ad­hoc promotion of the plaintiff was further extended for a period of six months w.e.f. 1.7.2004 vide order dated 7.7.2004. It is submitted that the name of the plaintiff was admitted to promotion list E­I (Exec) w.e.f 21.10.2004 in terms of Rule 16 (i) of Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980 vide notification dated 1.11.2004 and deputed for undergoing upper school course training at PTC w.e.f. 3.1.2005. On successful completion of Upper School Course, Service particulars and report regarding pendency of DE/PE/Cr. Case/Department Enquiry list was asked vide PHQ's order dated 24.5.2005 in order to give them regular promotion to the 35 rank of Sub Inspector (Exe.). It is argued that after admitting their names to promotion list E­II and the service particulars of plaintiff were sent by the office of DCP/Central District vide his letter dated 14.6.2005 intimating that a Crl. Case no. PE/DAI/2004­A­0015, CBI, AC Branch dated 27.4.2004 is pending against him. On successful completion of upper school course his name was admitted to promotion list E­II (Exe) w.e.f. 28.6.2005 and the same was circulated to him through his supervisory officer vide endorsement No. 1820­ 45/Estt., dated 6.7.2005 vide notification dated 29.6.2005 but he was not given regular promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector (Exe) due to pendency of Crl. Case against him as intimated by this office i.e. DCP / Central District, his ad­hoc promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector (Exe.) was not extended further after 31.12.2004 and was deemed to be discontinued w.e.f. 1.1.2005 due to pendency of Crl. Case vide notification No. 43659­760/CB­II, dated 28.6.2005.

It is argued that the plaintiff submitted a representation which was sent to Police Hdqrs. from their office DCP / Central District vide memo. No. 29798/CR­ 36 I/Central dated 30.9.2005 wherein he had stated that no criminal case is pending against him. According to the defendant the matter was again clarified from SP/CBI AC Branch, New Delhi who has intimated that no criminal case PE/DAI/2004­A­0015, CBI, AC Branch, dated 27.4.2004 shown earlier against him was on the basis of report of CBI in which recommendation was made for major penalty to the officer. It is pointed out that thereafter a departmental enquiry was initiated against the plaintiff vide order No. 5682­ 93/HAP­AC­II/C, dated 7.7.2005 against the plaintiff on the same allegation that while posted at operation cell, North District, Maurice Nagar, Delhi (during the period from 27.7.203 to 15.5.2004) he was entrusted the investigation of case FIR No. 347/03 U/s 420/468/471/120­B/34 IPC, PS Kashmere Gate Deli, dated 27.7.2003 registered against Sh. Vivek Gaur and Gaurav Khosla. The said V.K. Chaudhary lodged a complaint on 27.4.2004 in the CBI/AC/ New Delhi against the plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff was demanding bribe of Rs.1.20 lacs for not implicating him in case FIR No. 347/03 registered against Sh. Vivek Gaur and Gaurav Khosla. 37 It is pointed out that V.K. Chaudhary produced the recorded conversation to CBI office and the CFSL confirmed the voice of the plaintiff in the said recorded conversation. According to the defendants, it was alleged that plaintiff was trying to obtain the illegal gratification of Rs.1.20 lacs from V.K. Chaudhary for not arresting him in the said case when he did not arrest V.K. Chaudhary on 9.3.2004 while there were grounds and no fresh grounds emerged thereafter. It is further pointed out that the name of the plaintiff was brought on the agreed list of doubtful integrity w.e.f. 20.7.2005 for a period of one year vide order dated 27.7.2005 and another DE was also initiated against the plaintiff vide order dated 6.9.2006 on the allegations that while posted in Special Staff/ Central District on 27.9.2004 he did not take appropriate action in a case FIR No. 511/2004 under Section 489­A, 489­B, 489­C IPC PS Darya Ganj and consequently the accused were discharged by the Ld. ASJ on 10.3.2006. The defendants have admitted that the DE dated 7.7.2005 was filed vide order dated 12.9.2006 as the allegations for asking illegal money from the complainant for not making his arrest could not be 38 substantiated.

I have gone through the various documents placed on record before me. Firstly it is an admitted case of the parties that plaintiff is the employee of Delhi Police.

Secondly it is admitted by the defendant that he was promoted to the rank of Sub Inspector (Ex.) w.e.f. 1.1.2004 for a period of 6 months or till such time a regular panel is drawn for promotion list E­I (Exe.) and the officers become available for regular promotion after having been successfully completed the upper school course which ever is earlier.

Thirdly it is admitted by the defendant that the name of the plaintiff was admitted to promotion list E­I (Exe.) w.e.f. 21.10.2004 in terms of Rule 16 (i) of Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980 vide notification dated 1.11.2004 and deputed for undergoing Upper School Course Training at PTC w.e.f. 3.1.2005. On successful completion of Upper School Course the name of the plaintiff was admitted to promotion list E­II (Exe.) w.e.f. 28.6.2005 39 which was circulated to him through his supervisory officer vide endorsement no. 11820­45/ Estt./ Central District Dated 6.7.2005 vide notification dated 29.6.2005 but he was not given regular promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector (Exe) due to pendency of the criminal case, his ad­hoc promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector (Exe) was not extended further after 31.12.2004 and was deemed to be discontinued w.e.f. 1.1.2005 due to pendency of criminal case vide notification dated 28.6.2005.

Fourthly it is admitted that the plaintiff submitted a representation which was sent to the Police Head Quarter through he DCP Central vide memo no. 29798/CR­I/Central dated 30.9.2005 wherein he had stated that no criminal case was pending against him. According to the defendant, the matter was clarified from SP/CBI AC Branch who intimated that no criminal case is pending against the plaintiff and the criminal case PE/DAI/2004­A­0015, CBI AC Branch shown earlier against him was on the basis of report of CBI in which recommendation was made for major penalty to the officer. 40

Fifthly it is further admitted by both the parties that a DE was initiated against the plaintiff vide order no. 5682­93/HAP­AC­II/C dated 7.7.2005 on the allegations that while posted at Operation Cell, North District, Maurice Nagar, Delhi he was entrusted the investigation of case FIR No. 347/03 under Section 420/ 468/ 471/ 120­B/ 34 IPC, PS Kashmere Gate, Delhi dated 27.7.2003 registered against Sh. Vivek Gaur and Gaurav Khosla. A complaint was lodged by V.K. Chaudhary on 27.4.2004 with CBI/AC/ New Delhi against the plaintiff that he is demanding bribe of Rs.1.20 lacs from him for him implicating him in case FIR no. 347/03 and also to help him in getting anticipatory bail on which PE­DAI­ 2004­A­0015 was registered on 27.4.2004 at CBI/ACB/ New Delhi and the recording was made in the presence of independent witnesses which confirmed the demand of bribe by the plaintiff. Thereafter, a CBI team was constituted which proceeded near the office of the plaintiff alongwith V.K. Chaudhary and independent witness and a trap was laid but the CBI was no successful and therefore, the plaintiff could not caught red handed. Finally V.K. Chaudhary was arrested 41 by the plaintiff which according to the defendants was when the plaintiff got suspicious about V.K. Chaudhary. It was under these circumstances, that the plaintiff was brought on the agreed list of doubtful integrity w.e.f. 20.7.2005 for a period of one year vide order dated 27.7.2005.

Sixthly it is also admitted that the Department Enquiry dated 7.7.2005 was filed vide order dated 12.9.2006 as the allegations for asking illegal money from the complainant for not making his arrest could not be substantiated. Another Department Enquiry was also initiated against the plaintiff vide order dated 6.9.2006 on the allegations that while posted in Special Staff/ Central District on 27.9.2004 he did not take appropriate action in a case FIR No. 51/2004 under Section 489­A, 489­B, 489­C IPC and the accused were discharged by the Ld. ASJ on 10.3.2006 at the stage of charge.

Seventhly it is also admitted that the plaintiff had filed a representation dated 21.9.2005 and also filed an OA No. 2299/2005 under the title Ranbir Singh Vs. GNCT of Delhi & Ors. in the Hon' ble CAT who vide judgment dated 42 17.8.2006 partly allowed the OA pursuant to which the plaintiff was promoted to the rank of Sub Inspector (Ex.) w.e.f. 19.6.2005 with notional promotion in the rank of Sub Inspector (Ex.) for the period from 29.6.2005 to 19.9.2006 vide order dated 29.9.2006 wherein it was clearly mentioned that he was not entitled to any arrear of pay and allowances in the rank of Sub Inspector (Exe.) but his period was otherwise be counted towards the increments and seniority etc. Lastly the case of the defendant is that the plaintiff is not entitled to any pay and allowances of Notional Promotion period as per FR­17 as the plaintiff did not perform his duty in the rank of Sub Inspector during this period and the name of the plaintiff brought on agreed list of doubtful integrity w.e.f. 27.9.2006 on the allegations of departmental inquiry dated 6.9.2006 which departmental enquiry was filed vide order dated 6.8.2007.

The plaintiff before this court is claiming damages on account of the following count:

1. On account of mental agony/anguish, harassment and humiliation the plaintiff suffered from 5.8.2005 to 43 26.9.2006 when he had to work under his juniors and obey their commands.
2. On account of the fact that he was not able to face his friends and family after being reverted as if he had committed some offence for which he was punished.
3. On account of the fact that he had to face an illegal Departmental Enquiry initiated vide Order dt. 7.7.2005 that was initiated only to deprive the plaintiff from his lawful promotion and further to punish him.
4. On account of depression and tension caused by the enquiry ordered vide Order dt. 7.7.2005 to the plaintiff in which he was ultimately found innocent.
5. On account of the fact that he had to suffer loss of pay and allowances of the promotional post of Sub Inspector (Exe.) for the period from 29.6.2005 to 19.9.2006.
6. As the plaintiff had to incur expenses to file and pursue O.A No. 2299/2005 in Hon' ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi for quashing of reversion order and for getting his due promotion. 44

In so far as mental agony, anguish, harassment and humiliation suffered by the plaintiff from 29.6.2005 to 26.9.2006, i.e. the period during which the plaintiff had to work under his juniors is concerned, it was necessary for the plaintiff to have either specifically brought on record the proof regarding the humiliation caused to him by either producing the details of his juniors under whom he had worked during the said period or to have examined such persons in the court which he has not done. Therefore, having failed to prove the aforesaid, I hereby hold that he is not entitled to compensation on account of the aforesaid.

The plaintiff is also seeking damages for the humiliation caused to him during this period when he was not able to face his friends and family after being reverted and had to face the harassment of the illegal Department Enquiry which according to him was initiated in order to deprive him from the lawful promotion. He submits that he had suffered depression and tension caused by the inquiry ordered on 7.7.2005 wherein he was ultimately found innocent and had to suffer loss of pay and allowances of the promotional post of 45 Sub Inspector for the period from 29.6.2005 to 26.9.2006 and also had to incur expenses to file and pursue OA No. 2299/05 in Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench. The plaintiff has not examined any of his family members or friends to prove that he had been defamed and had to suffer humiliation in the eyes of his friends. In so far as the initiation of the department inquiry is concerned, it is admitted that the same was initiated on the basis of a complaint made be one V.K. Chaudhary and not on the instructions of any of the officer of the department. The Department Enquiry has been disposed off in accordance with the procedure established by law for which the plaintiff would not be entitled to any compensation. The plaintiff has also not placed on record any medical certificate for the intervening period to show that he had suffered any depression for which he had to undergo any treatment during the period of his enquiry.

However, in so far as the financial losses suffered by the plaintiff on account of the expenses incurred by him for pursuing his litigation before Ld. Central Administrative 46 Tribunal (Principal Bench) is concerned, it was open to the plaintiff to have sought this relief before the concerned Bench and the Hon' ble Bench not having granted any costs of the suit to the plaintiff, it is not open for this court to grant such costs to him in the present petition. Further, the plaintiff has not been able to prove the allegations made against the individual officers i.e. Joint Commissioner of Police (PHQ); Deputy Commissioner of Police (PHQ); Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central District); Sub Inspector Pratap Singh and Assistant Sub Inspector Ram Bilas i.e. defendants no. 3 to 7.

It is also alleged by the defendant that the integrity of the plaintiff remain doubtful during his service and the action taken by the department is in accordance with law due to which reason the plaintiff is not entitled to any consequential benefits. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.8.2006 is admitted by the defendants. The same has not been challenged in any court of law and has become final. The relevant extract of the same is as under:

47

10.) In the result, for the foregoing reasons, OA is partly allowed.

Impugned order is set aside.

Respondents are directed to re­ consider promotion of the applicant on regular basis on the post of SI w.e.f. 29.6.2005 by passing a detailed and speaking order. In the event of promotion, if applicant is not otherwise ineligible, consequential benefits would ensue. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

The defendants in compliance of the aforesaid order of the Hon' ble Tribunal vide order dated 29.9.2006 promoted the plaintiff to officiate Sub Inspector (Exe.) w.e.f. 29.6.2005. He was, however, granted Notional Promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector (Exe.) for the period w.e.f. 29.6.2005 to 19.9.2006 during which period he was held to be not entitled to any arrears of pay and allowances in the rank of Sub Inspector (Exe.) but it was directed that this period will 48 otherwise count towards increments and seniority etc. The order of the Hon'bl e Central Administrative Tribunal is succinctly clearly to the extent that if the applicant is found not otherwise ineligible all consequential benefits would ensue. The defendant department could not have withheld the consequential benefits which include the financial benefits. The defendants cannot be permitted to over­reach and defeat the benefits granted to the plaintiff by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 29.9.2006 by extending the application of FR­17 to the case of the plaintiff. The provisions of FR­17 would not be applicable to a case where the plaintiffs have been held entitled to such benefits by the court of competent jurisdiction which order has become final. The defendants no.1 to 5 having wronged the plaintiff as observed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, have now by denying him the consequential benefits, compounded the earlier wrong. Even otherwise, in the present case the officer has been prevented from working on a particular post by the act of the department by way of a departmental order, where then is the question of 49 holding the plaintiff not entitled to such benefits for not having worked as such. The provisions of FR­17 would have no applicability in such a case and the defendants no.1 to 5 by stretching its application to the present case have tried to over­reach and defeat the order of the Hon'bl e Central Administrative Tribunal dated 29.9.2006, thereby rendering themselves liable for deliberate and willful violation of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 29.9.2006 and contempt thereof. Be that as the case may be, the plaintiff is not seeking any action against them for the said violation but only compensation for the loss of pay for the said period. I, therefore, hold that the defendants no. 1 to 5 have wrongly withheld the pay and allowances for the period 29.6.2005 to 29.9.2006 by only granting to the plaintiff Notional Promotion which consequential benefits are his entitlement in view of the order of Hon'bl e Central Administrative Tribunal dated 29.9.2006.

In view of my aforesaid discussion I hereby hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to the damages/ compensation of any counts except on the account of loss of pay and 50 allowance for the promotional post of Sub Inspector for the period 29.6.2005 to 26.9.2006 in terms of the directions of the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal in OA no. 2299/05 under Ranbir Singh Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi'. 

the title '                                       Issue is

disposed off accordingly.


Relief:

In view of my findings with regard to the various issues, I hereby hold the plaintiff is not entitled to the compensation/ damages as asked for in plaint except the losses pay and allowances for the period 29.6.2005 to 26.9.2006 for the promotional post of Sub Inspector. Further I hold that the plaintiff would be entitled to the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till its realization.

Suit of the plaintiff is decreed partly. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.



Announced in the open court                   (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 11.12.2009                          Addl. District Judge: Delhi




                                     51
 Ranbir Singh   Vs.   Union of India
CS No. 129/2007

11.12.2009

Present:     Plaintiff in person.

Sh. N.K. Sharma, advocate for the defendants. Vide my separate detailed order dictated and announced in the open court but not yet typed, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed partly. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.

(Dr. Kamini Lau) ADJ: DELHI/ 11.12.2009 52