Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ct. Vijay Singh S/O Shri Puran Singh And ... vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through Chief ... on 10 January, 2008
ORDER
V.K. Bali, J. (Chairman)
1. By this common order, we propose to dispose of two connected Original Applications involving same/similar question therein. The facts having been extracted from OA No. 58/2008 reveal that the applicant was appointed as Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police on 1.5.1994. His case is that he was falsely implicated in criminal case FIR No.20/2000 dated 17.4.2000 Under Section 7 & 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and was placed under suspension w.e.f. 17.4.2000 vide order dated 24.4.2000. He was convicted in the criminal case aforesaid by Special Judge, Delhi vide judgment dated 4.12.2007 and was sentenced to undergo RI of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-. He was also to undergo imprisonment of three months in default of payment of fine. He preferred an appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence before the Delhi High Court, which has since been admitted and is pending disposal. The respondents, on 9.12.2005, issued a circular vide which an employee could be dismissed from service under Clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India if he was convicted, even though the appellate court might have suspended the order of conviction and sentence. The circular to the effect aforesaid was issued on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Deputy Director of College Education (Administration) Madras v. S. Nagoor Meera (1995) 3 SCC 377. It is the case of the applicant that even though, his appeal has been admitted by the High Court, the respondents are likely to dismiss him from service in view of circular dated 9.12.2005 (Annexure-1).
2. The learned Counsel representing the applicant contends that the circular aforesaid has already been set at naught by decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 544/2006 and connected cases decided on 30.7.2007 wherein the Tribunal has restrained the respondents from giving effect to the circular aforesaid.
3. Having heard the learned Counsel representing the applicant and examining the records of the case, we are of the considered view that the present Application is premature. Once, this Tribunal has already directed the respondents not to give effect to circular dated 9.12.2005, unless the decision of the Tribunal is varied or set aside by a higher forum, the respondents are supposed to follow the law laid down by the Tribunal. We have already observed in OA No.29/2008 in the matter of SI Tariq Ali Khan v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. decided on 7.1.2008 that no court would ever presume that the respondents would not follow the law and, therefore, interference in the matter at that stage would not be justified. We have dismissed the OA aforesaid being premature with liberty to the applicant to file fresh OA, if despite non-applicability of the circular aforesaid, the applicant is still given marching order.
4. Finding no merit in the Applications, the same are dismissed in limine, with liberty to file fresh OA, if the respondents may yet dismiss the applicant from service.