Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ram Kumar vs Comm. Of Police on 23 July, 2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A.No.1978/2016
Monday, this the 23rd day of July 2018
Hon'ble Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
Ram Kumar
Constable in Delhi Police
PIS No.28871351
Aged about 50 years
s/o late Sh. Jai Singh
r/o 102, Type -II
PC Shakarpur, Delhi
..Applicant
(Mr. Anil Singal, Advocate)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through Commissioner of Police
PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi
2. Jt. Comm. Of Police
(Eastern Range), PHQ
IP Estate, New Delhi
3. Addl. DCP (North East Distt.)
Near Seelampur Metro Station
Seelampur, Delhi - 53
..Respondents
(Ms. Neetu Mishra, Advocate for Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate)
O R D E R (ORAL)
The applicant is working as a Constable in Delhi Police. He remained unauthorizedly absent from 11.09.2013 to 31.07.2014, i.e., for a period of 10 months and 20 days. He resumed his duties on 01.08.2014. The applicant's contention is that he was suffering from liver and kidney diseases, for which he was under treatment. The respondents ordered an enquiry in the matter by appointing Mr. Birendra Kumar as enquiry officer (EO). The EO submitted his Annexure A-1 findings after examining witnesses from both 2 the sides and the records. Finally, vide his Annexure A-1 report dated 28.04.2015, the EO concluded as under:-
"Conclusion After going through the allegations, statements of PWs, DWs, Defence statement and other record available on file, I have reached to the conclusion that the delinquent is suffering from lever & kidney problem. However, he should have intimated the department about his illness & getting the medical rest approved from the competent authority but he did not inform the department despite repeated absentee notices. However, DW-3 (Smt. Suman w/o Ct. Ram Kumar) in her statement stated that she had informed at PS-New Ushman Pur on phone about the illness of the delinquent. He resumed his duties on 01.08.2014 after a period of 10 months & 20 days & submitted the medical papers issued by the authorized hospitals which have been found genuine. The allegation for not intimating the department about his absent/illness is proved. However, keeping in view his physical condition & family circumstances, lenient view may be taken against him."
2. The disciplinary authority, namely Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, North-East District, Delhi, after considering the EO's report, vide its impugned Annexure A-2 order dated 21.05.2015, imposed the following penalty on the applicant:
"In view of the findings in which allegations for not intimating the department about his absent are proved, I, Rajendra Singh Sagar, Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, North-East District, Delhi, award a punishment of censure to Ct. Ram Kumar, No.1285/NE and his absence period from 11.9.2013 to 31.7.2014 is decided as dies-non on the principle of "No Work No Pay"."
Aggrieved by the impugned Annexure A-2 penalty order, the applicant has filed the instant O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:
"1. To quash and set aside the impugned Findings dt. 28.4.2015, Order of Punishment dt. 21.5.2015 and Appellate Order dt. 6.4.2016 and direct the respondents to treat the period from 11.9.2013 to 3 31.7.2014 as Medical rest with all consequential benefits including promotion/seniority and arrears of pay."
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. The factum of applicant being sick from 11.09.2013 to 31.07.2014 is established in the EO's report, as noticed hereinabove. The applicant was duty bound to intimate the Department about his illness, but he failed to do so. However, his wife, during the course of enquiry by the EO, has stated that she informed the Police Station, where he was working, about illness of the applicant, but the Police Station did not record it. There is no document to substantiate that the illness of the applicant was ever reported to the Department by him. In this view of the matter, I do not find any wrong in the penalty order.
5. As regards treating the period of illness of the applicant as dies non, as ordered by the disciplinary authority in its impugned Annexure A-2 order, I am of the view that this punishment was uncalled for and deserves to be set aside. The fact remains that the applicant was ill from 11.09.2013 to 31.07.2014 and has been established in the enquiry as well. The Department, therefore, could have taken a sympathetic view and taken action to regularize this period by sanctioning him appropriate leaves, as available to his credit.
6. Accordingly, I direct the respondents to regularize the period of absence, i.e., 11.09.2013 to 31.07.2014 by sanctioning him appropriate leaves. In case, the leaves available to his credit fall short of, the remaining period be regularized by sanctioning him the extra-ordinary leaves. The 4 Annexure A-2 penalty order is, thus, set aside to the extent that the period of absence of the applicant shall be treated as medical leave and not as dies non. In view of this order, the applicant shall be entitled for all consequential benefits, which shall be released to him within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. The O.A. is accordingly disposed of.
No order as to costs.
( K.N. Shrivastava ) Member (A) July 23, 2018 /sunil/