Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Hc Bijender Singh vs Govt. Of Nctd Through on 13 March, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.890/2013
WITH
OA No.891/2013 and
OA No.897/2013
Wednesday, this the 13th day of March, 2013
Honble Shri George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Shri Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
OA No.890/2013
HC Bijender Singh, Age-52 years,
8849/PCR
S/o Shri Tej Pal,
R/o Nangla Siri Gopal,
PO-Rabupura Distt-Bulandshahar,
Uttar Pradesh
Applicant.
(By Advocate: Shri Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCTD through
The Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, IP Estate,
New Delhi.
2. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Police Control Room,
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
... Respondents
OA No. 891/2013
Constable Raghubir Singh, Age-48 years,
PIS-28900319
S/o Late Shri Prahlad Singh
R/o Village Phiolani, PO-Asawata,
Palwal, Haryana.
Applicant.
(By Advocate: Shri Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCTD through
The Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, IP Estate,
New Delhi.
2. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Police Control Room,
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
... Respondents
OA No. 897/2013
SI Raj Kumar
Age 46 years,
No.D/3720 (PIS No.16960007)
S/o Shri Gopal Ram,
R/o 323, Police Colony,
Ashok Vihar,
Phase-I,
New Delhi-110052.
Applicant.
(By Advocate: Shri Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCTD through
The Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, IP Estate,
New Delhi.
2. The Additional Commissioner of Police,
Police Control Room,
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
... Respondents
O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri G George Paracken:
These Original Applications are identical and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.
2. The applicants are aggrieved by the impugned Annexure A-1 order 19.05.2010 whereby a common departmental inquiry was initiated against them. They have also aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 15.06.2012 whereby the major punishment i.e. forfeiture of two years approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in their pay with immediate effect has been imposed upon them and the suspension period was treated as period not spent on duty for all intents and purposes. They have also challenged the Appellate Authoritys order dated 19.02.2013 whereby their appeals, made against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, have been rejected. They have, therefore, sought the following identical reliefs in these OAs:-
i) To set aside the impugned order dated 15.6.12 of Disciplinary Authority whereby the major punishment forfeiture of 2 years approved service permanently imposed upon the applicant annexed at A-1 and order dated 19.2.13 of Appellate Authority whereby the appeal of the applicant has been rejected annexed at A-2 and to further direct the respondents that the forfeited years of service be restored as it was never forfeited with all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion and pay and allowances. The respondents be directed to treat the entire suspension period of the applicant as spent on duty for all intents and purposes.
ii) To set aside the finding of enquiry officer; or/and
iii) Any other relief which this Honble Court deems fit and proper may also awarded to the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that these cases are squarely covered by an earlier order of this Tribunal in OA No.4097/2011 and connected cases, ASI Pale Ram and Ors. v. The Commissioner of Police and Others. The operative part of the said order reads as under:-
13. Thus, we are of the opinion that on account of the charge of allegation being vague and not specific, total reliance being placed on CD which was not original, opportunity not being given to cross examine important prosecution witnesses because they were not produced and that no independent witnesses were produced, we find the proceedings conducted against the applicants are not in accordance with the rules and the principles of natural justice. In our view, the respondents have totally relied upon an illegal trap, a CD which has no evidentiary value and proceedings which are not in accordance with the rules and the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders Annexure A-1 to A-3 cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed and set aside. The applicants shall be given all consequential benefits from the date when the punishment was imposed, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. OA is accordingly allowed. No costs.
4. Learned counsel, Shri Amit Anand who is the panel counsel for the Delhi Govt., present in the court, has been directed to appear in this matter on behalf of the respondents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, Sh. Sachin Chauhan and the learned counsel for the respondents Sh. Amit Anand. We are of the prima facie view that these cases are covered by the aforesaid judgment of this Tribunal. However, we direct the respondents to examine these cases in detail in the light of the aforesaid order of this Tribunal and if their cases are found to be covered to extend the same benefits. While examining their cases, the respondents shall also consider these OAs as additional representation on their behalf. They shall also pass appropriate orders, in this regard, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the applicants are still aggrieved in the matter, they are at liberty to challenge the orders, so passed, through appropriate proceedings, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of this order be placed in each of the case files.
( Shekhar Agarwal ) ( G George Paracken )
Member (A) Member (J)
/vb/