Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Hc Exe Satbir Singh vs Govt. Of Nctd Through on 19 July, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA NO.79/2010 New Delhi this the 19th day of July, 2010 Honble Shri N.D. Dayal, Member (A) Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) HC Exe Satbir Singh S/o Late Sh. Attar Singh, R/o Village Abdulla Pur Mavilawa PO Aninagar Sasi Distt. Baghpat UP. Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. Sachin Chauhan) Versus 1. Govt. of NCTD through Commissioner of Police, Delhi, Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 2. The Joint Commissioner of Police, Delhi, Rashtrapati Bhawan, Through Commissioner of Police, Delhi, Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi, Rashtrapati Bhawan, Through Commissioner of Police, Delhi, Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Delhi, Rashtrapati Bhawan, Through Commissioner of Police, Delhi, Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 5. The Reserve Inspector Rashtrapati Bhawan, Through Commissioner of Police, Delhi, Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. Ram Kanwar) O R D E R (ORAL) Shri N.D. Dayal, Member (A) :
The short point involved in this matter pertains to order as at Annexure A/1, a copy of the entry in the ACR for the period from 1.9.2007 to 31.3.2008. This shows entry of major penalty of forfeiture of two years service permanently and grading C. Learned counsel submits that this punishment has been reduced in appeal to censure. He further points out that representation against the adverse ACR entry has been turned down by the order at Annexure A/2 by observing that the appellate authority has not exonerated the applicant and the misconduct is no way reduced.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that if the penalty is reduced, it would have its implication for the grading and the seriousness of conduct. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the counter reply explains the background based upon the impugned orders and it cannot be said that there is no application of mind while passing the impugned order.
3. Upon consideration of these submissions, we are of the considered view that the record of the ACR entry against Column General Remarks wherein following remarks has been noted:-
Since he has been punished for 2 yrs service forfeiture permanently would not be able to stand after the reduction of penalty on appeal. Similarly, grading recorded as C would also need proper reconsideration. Since the penalty was reduced after the CR was written, entry in the ACR per se was not incorrect. But the same cannot stand against the applicant in consideration of his service prospects and benefits. It would have to be read as censure.
4. In this view of the matter, the respondents are directed to reconsider the representation of the applicant against the adverse entry in ACR both with regard to the penalty as well as grading and pass appropriate orders in the light of the above observations and in accordance with law within a period of two months.
5. The OA is disposed of as above. No costs.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) (N.D. Dayal)
Member (J) Member (A)
/ravi/