Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Asstt. Sub Inspector Karan Singh vs Govt. Of Nctd Through on 7 December, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No. 480/2009 MA No.3056/2010 New Delhi, this the 7th day of December, 2010 Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman Honble Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) Asstt. Sub Inspector Karan Singh Working as Asstt. Sub Inspector in Delhi Police S/o late Shri Risak Ram R/o C-8, Nauh Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi 59. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) Versus 1. Govt. of NCTD through Commissioner of Police Police Headquarters, IP Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 2. The Joint Commissioner of Police, PHQ, through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Establishment (HQ) through Commissioner of Police, PS Parliament Street, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Ms. Sangeeta Rai for Mr. R.N. Singh) O R D E R Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman:
MA No.3056/2010 For the reasons mentioned in this Misc. Application, we recall our order dated 25.10.2010 and restore the Original Application to its original number.
OA No.480/2009Karan Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector in Delhi Police, who has been overlooked in the matter of promotion to the post of Sub Inspector (Exe.), has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Prayer of the applicant is to set aside orders dated 17.12.2007 (Annexure A-1), 03.03.2008 (Annexure A-2) and 18.12.2008 (Annexure A-3) and to direct the respondents to reconsider the applicant for promotion to List E-1(Exe.) w.e.f. 14.12.2007 along with batch-mates with all consequential benefits.
2. Annexure A-1 is the order of Deputy Commissioner of Police admitting names of 337 ASIs as approved by the Departmental Promotion Committee to Promotion List E-1 (Exe.) w.e.f. 14.12.2007 in terms of Rule 16(i) of the Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980 for training in Upper School Course. Annexure A-2 is the order dated 03.03.2008, vide which representation of the applicant to reconsider his name for admission in Promotion List E-1 (Exe.) w.e.f. 14.12.2007 was rejected. Annexure A-3 is yet another order dated 18.12.2008 rejecting similar representation of the applicant.
3. Brief facts as set out in the Original Application would reveal that the applicant was appointed as Constable in Delhi Police in 1973. During his service tenure, he earned two promotions in the rank of Head Constable and Assistant Sub Inspector. In the year 2007, DPC met for consideration of names for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) and based on the recommendations thereof, Promotion List E-1 (Exe.) containing names of 337 ASIs was issued by the department on 17.12.2007 effective from 14.12.2007, and the selected candidates were sent for Upper School Course. Since the name of the applicant did not find figure in the said Promotion List E-1 (Exe.), he was not deputed for Upper Training Course. The two representations made by the applicant for the desired relief, as mentioned above, were turned down. The applicant under Right to Information Act came to know that he could not be included in the Promotion List E-1 (Exe.) as he was graded unfit by the DPC due to his indifferent service record. On further enquiries, he came to know that he was declared unfit because of two orders dated 19.11.2004 and 15.09.2006 vide which he was inflicted punishment of censures. It is the case of the applicant that insofar as two censures are concerned, none of them is on the ground of corruption or moral turpitude. Insofar as censure, which was issued to the applicant vide order dated 19.11.2004, is concerned, the same was on allegations of lack of supervision, and in any case, earlier in point of time, the Tribunal vide its order dated 16.12.2008 in OA No. 1007/2008, set aside the said order of censure. It is the case of the applicant that, as per Instructions dated 07.02.2005 issued by the department, unless the censure may be because of corruption or moral turpitude, the same would not come in the way of an officer of Delhi Police in the matter of promotion and at the most his promotion may be deferred for a period of six months.
4. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, respondents have entered appearance and by filing their reply contested the cause of the applicant. It has, inter alia, been pleaded in paragraph 2 of the brief facts of the case that the applicant was censured vide office order dated 19.11.2004 on the allegations that on 18.09.2004 one Mr. Rajiv Gupta (complainant) telephonically complained to ACP-T/North that his vehicle was stopped near Inder Lok Metro Station by ZO/ASI Karan Singh (applicant herein) on the pretext that vehicles registered outside Delhi are not allowed to enter Delhi. After long persuasion, the applicant released the vehicle without fine/prosecution and took Rs.100/- from the complainant, and this would indicate that applicant indulged in mal-practice. The conduct of the applicant was again censured by DCP/Traffic (Hqrs), Delhi vide office order dated 15.09.2006 on the allegations that he delayed the matter and registered case FIR No.901/2003 u/s 448 IPC, PS Janak Puri, Delhi on 10.12.2003 instead of 02.11.2003.
5. The applicant has filed rejoinder, but as regards censure on the allegations of corruption of getting Rs.100/- from Mr. Rajiv Gupta has not been denied.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. It may be true that, as per the law earlier settled by this Tribunal, the extant instructions, would not debar the case of Delhi Police officer for promotion unless the censure was on allegations of corruption or moral turpitude or loss to the government property, but the same has been overruled by a Larger Bench of this Tribunal consisting of Chairman, Vice Chairman and three Members, in the matter of SI Prabhu Dayal etc. V/s. Commissioner of Police & Anr. (OA No.452/2010 and other connected OAs decided on 14.07.2010) based upon a recent judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court wherein it was held that overall record of an officer of Delhi Police is relevant for the purpose of assessing him for promotion to higher grade even if the censure may not be on the allegations of corruption, moral turpitude or loss to the government property. The applicant has thus no case whatsoever based upon the instructions relied upon by his counsel. If one has to go by the instructions, the surviving censure against the applicant is on the allegations of corruption and, therefore, even the instructions will not come to the rescue of the applicant. If perhaps, the censure was not on the allegations of corruption and may have been on mere procedural lapse on the part of the applicant, and when one order of punishment of censure on such ground may have been set aside, we might have remanded the matter to the authorities to constitute a review DPC as in that case only one censure would survive and that too on procedural lapse. However, in the present case, one censure, which survives is on the allegations of corruption, in our view, may be enough so as not to promote an officer of Delhi Police to the next higher post.
7. Finding no merit in this Original Application, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(L.K. Joshi) (V.K. Bali) Vice Chairman(A) Chairman /naresh/