Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Bhanwar Singh S/O Chuna Ram vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 4 January, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application Nos.10 of 2012 This the 4th day of January, 2012 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Bhanwar Singh S/o Chuna Ram, R/o Village Bhauji Ki Dhani, P.O. Batra Nau, P.S. Laxman Sarh, Distt. Sikar (Rajasthan). Applicant ( By Shri Shyam Babu with Shri Shekhar Kumar, Advocates ) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through its Chief Secretary, Players Building, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Police, IGI Airport, New Delhi. 3. Special Commissioner of Police (Operations), Delhi Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. Respondents O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Bhanwar Singh, a constable in Delhi Police, for his long unauthorized absence from duty, and for which delinquency he was earlier in point of time also inflicted thrice over the punishment of censure, has been dismissed from service vide order dated 31.12.2010 passed by the disciplinary authority, which order has since been confirmed in appeal vide order dated 23.05.2011. These are the orders that have been challenged in this Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The disciplinary as also the appellate authorities have passed reasoned and detailed orders.
2. The facts as may be relevant would reveal that a departmental enquiry was conducted against the applicant under provisions of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, vide order dated 30.01.2009, on the allegation that consequent upon his transfer from 3rd Bn., DAP to the unit vide order dated 05.09.2006, the applicant had been reported to have been relieved vide DD No.97-B dated 07.03.2007 with direction to join his new place of posting, but he did not report in that unit. Following a request made to DCP/3rd Bn., DAP vide memo dated 08.06.2007 to intimate the whereabouts of the applicant, HC Harish Kumar was detailed for the purpose vide u.o. dated 31.07.2007. He visited the residence of the applicant at his village in Rajasthan on 09.08.2007 and reported that the applicant had written on the u.o. aforesaid that he had been unwell for many months and would join his duty after recovery from illness, but he would neither hand over any medical papers in support of his illness, nor would further send any sort of information to the department. On 23.07.2008 HC (Exe.) Joginder Singh along with Const. (Dvr.) Jai Singh dropped the applicant at IGI Airport Lines by government vehicle on the direction of RI/3rd Bn., DAP, and lodged arrival of the applicant vide DD No.18 of even date after his unauthorized and willful absence for a considerable period of more than one year and four months. Thereafter his departure was lodged vide DD No.23 of the same date for collecting his belongings from Vikas Puri Lines, but he did not report back and was subsequently marked absent. An absentee notice was sent at his permanent residential address on 05.08.2008 with the direction to join duty immediately, but the applicant would not turn up and would still remain absent from duty willfully, unauthorizedly and without any intimation to the department since 23.07.2008. How the enquiry proceeded against the applicant is depicted step by step in both the orders, but we may reproduce the order passed by the appellate authority in that regard. The same reads, thus:
Initially the departmental enquiry was entrusted to Inspr. Gajraj Singh, No.D-I/94 for conducting the same on day-to-day basis. On his transfer, the D.E. was entrusted to Inspr. Sunil Kumar, No.D-2143 vide order No.476-480/HAP-IGIA (P-I) dated 16.02.2009. The enquiry officer issued summons dated 1.4.09, 13.4.09, 2.5.2009 and 5.6.2009 to the appellant to join the D.E. proceedings but he did not join the D.E. proceedings despite receiving the summons and the E.O. requested for grant of permission to conduct ex-parte proceedings in the D.E. Accordingly, the ex-parte orders were issued vide order No.1901-1902/HAP-IGIA (P-I) dated 10.07.2009, which were served on his wife and son through const. Jai Singh, No.1819/A at his residential address as the appellant was not present. Ultimately, the E.O. served the Summary of Allegations, list of witnesses and list of relied upon documents alongwith copies of the same to the appellant on 12.08.2009 through HC Satyavir Singh, No.1863/A against his proper receipt at his residential address as well as summons for 18.8.2009 for D.E. proceedings, but did not join the D.E. After examination of 08 PWs, the E.O. prepared charge and served upon his wife Smt. Taramani on 23.03.2010 through HC Raja Ram, No.1842/A at his residential address as the appellant was not present at home. Consequent upon transfer of the E.O., the D.E was transferred to Inspr. Pradeep Kumar, No.D-I/790 vide order No 1991-2004/HAP-IGIA (P-I) dated 12.5.2010 and the charge was duly received by the appellant through HC Sajjan Singh, No.28/A at his residential address. The appellant was given sufficient time to reply the charge but he did not respond. A last notice dated 07.06.2010 was sent to him through HC Sajjan Singh, No.28/A to submit the list of DWs and defence statement within a fortnight failing which the D.E. shall be finalized on merits, but the appellant did not bother to reply despite receiving the notice on 11.6.2010.
The appellant neither replied to the charge served upon him nor joined the D.E. proceedings. The E.O. thus completed the D.E. proceedings after examining 08 PWs ex-parte and submitted his finding on 10.07.2010 concluding therein that the charge framed against the appellant stands proved.
Tentatively, agreeing with the findings of the E.O. a copy of findings was sent to the appellant vide u.o. No3104/HAP-IGIA (P-I) dated 14.07.2010 through HC Sajjan Singh, No.28/A with the direction to make a representation/ submission in writing to the disciplinary authority within 15 days from the date of its receipt, failing which it will be presumed that he has nothing to say in his defence and a decision would be taken on merits, which was received by the appellant on 23.07.2010 against his proper receipt. However, despite giving him three reminders for submitting his representation against the finding of E.O., which were duly received by the appellant on 19.08.2010, 03.09.2010 and 27.09.2010 he neither bothered to reply the findings nor sent any medical papers personally or through any source of communication which showed that he had nothing to say in his defence. To meet the natural justice and in the interest of equity &fair play, last opportunity notice was also issued vide No.5408-09/HAP-IGIA (P-I) dated 16.10.2010 with the direction to appear in O.R. on 26.11.2010 at 10.00 AM alongwith his representation failing which it will be presumed that he has nothing to say in his defence and the matter will be decided on its merits without providing him any further opportunity. The said notice was delivered to him on 20.11.2010 through HC Vikram Singh, NO.1923/A at his residence. On 26.11.2010, the appellant neither reported in the office for O.R. nor submitted his representation despite nothing the contents of O.R. notice. Finding no alternative, disciplinary authority decided the one way enquiry ex-parte and awarded the punishment of dismissal from service with immediate effect to the appellant and decided his absence period as not spent on duty for all intents and purposes vice order No. 6637.HAP-IGIA (P-I) dated 31.12.2010.
The appellant received the copy of dismissal order on 22.01.2011 through HC Partap Singh, No.9/A at his residence. The grounds of appeal taken by the applicant have also been mentioned in the appellate order itself. The conclusion drawn by the appellate authority reads as follows:
I have gone through the order of punishment, appeal submitted by the appellant as well as other relevant records on file. Despite the appeal being time barred still the appellant has been given opportunity of personal hearing on 20.05.2011. During O.R. he has reiterated the pleas already taken by him. On perusal of his service record it has been found that since 1988 his conduct has been censured thrice for unauthorized absence from duty. In the year 2000 he has also been removed from service for the same reason. Despite all out efforts made by the E.O. as well as his disciplinary authority appellant did not join the D.E. proceedings. If he was genuinely mentally disturbed, at least he could have submitted his medical papers to the E.O. through his wife and son but despite receiving ex-parte D.E. orders as well as charge through his wife and son he did not prefer to respond in time. In fact appellant has callously exhausted every opportunity given to him by the E.O. as well as his disciplinary authority. In view of his past record and the way he showed his utter carelessness and indiscipline in the present matter, medical papers submitted by him do not seem to be trustworthy. The way he has handled the things clearly reveals that he is not interested to continue in government service.
3. We have heard Shri Shyam Babu, learned counsel representing the applicant and with his assistance examined the records of the case. We find from the records that the present is a case where the applicant has been given opportunity on all conceivable occasions, as required in a departmental enquiry. It rather appears that the respondents gave him opportunities more than even required under the rules, but the applicant would avail none of such opportunities to represent his case. It is not thus only a case where the applicant remained unauthorizedly absent before he was departmentally tried, but he would not appear before the concerned authorities willfully, as we find that at no stage the applicant may have even intimated to the respondents the reasons for his non-participation in the enquiry proceedings. The learned counsel would, however, contend that there was no justification for proceeding ex parte against the applicant, and that the applicant was absent as he could not appear before the enquiry officer or the authorities because of his being mentally sick. We do not find any merit in either of the contentions of the learned counsel as noted above. The facts as have been fully detailed by the appellate authority, as reproduced above, would clearly show that the respondents had no choice but for to proceed ex parte against the applicant. Despite that, at every relevant occasion, as mentioned above, the applicant was asked to give his explanation, be it the opportunity to file his defence statement or the tentative findings that came to be recorded against him. As regards mental ailment of the applicant, there is clear finding that the applicant would not intimate the same to the department at any stage. Since when the applicant became mentally sick, what treatment he obtained and from where, could not be disclosed even now, nor any proper proof in that regard could be submitted even at this stage. The applicant was in a disciplined force and for his unauthorized absence for a long time, read with his past record for similar delinquencies committed by him, we are of the view that no fault at all can be found with either of the orders challenged in the present OA.
4. Finding the Original Application to be totally bereft of merit, the same is dismissed in limine.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/