Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rakam Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 27 August, 2020
CENTRAL AD1\1INISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NE\V DELHI
The details of all the Applicants and the Respondents m tht· cast
should be furnished in the given below format :
Subject !Appendix VII of CAT Rule of Practice, 1993
ace.ha, Kb.a>eat
l
( ii)
SL.No.
Ministry/Department (As per list attached)
Description
ear. 7 a.Details
OA
1. Type of· 0.A./P.T.
2. i No. of Applicant e)
3. ! No. of Respondent 1
4. ! Applic::.u1t's Name
s. I Age
6. Group Cc
7. Sex
8. Nationality In
9. ather's /Mother's/Husband's
Name
10. I Res. Address:
al,%
I
I
I
11. Office Address :
E-mail Address· [email protected]
I
l
12
. J
'
; 13. Mobile No.
-
14. Phone
15. !'Fax
~ .. No. I N.A.
\?..me of .~.dvocate : Sachin Chauhan _
C-67 Basement, Lajpat Nagar-1 New Delhi-24
ddress of Advocate :
Phone No.: Mobile No.~81061_8584
Dated: _ Signe~!Advocate
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH; NEW DELHI
O.A NO. of 2020
In the matter of
...Applicant
Rakam Singh
Versus
...Respondents
GNCT of Delhi & Ors.
I N D E X
Page Annexure
Sl. Particulars
No.
1. COMP.-I
A-C
List of Dates
2. Application U/s 19 of AT ACT
1-12
orders dated
3. Copies Impugned 13 A-1
18.12.2019
COMP.-II
4. Copy of representation dated 19- 1 A-2
06.01.2020 A-3
Copy of order dated 19.2.2020 --19M
4.
A-4
5. Copy of Standing Order No. 90-9
184/2019 dated 02.8.2019
6. Copy of order dated 19.9.2014 98-9 A-5
7. Vakalatnama 3)
Through
Dated I SACii-CHAUHAN)
ADVOCATE
C-67, (basement)
Lajpat Nagar-I,
New Delhi
Mobile No. : 9810618584
Email Id: [email protected]
9
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH; NEW DELHI
O.A NO. of 2020
In the matter of
.... Applicant
Rakam Singh
Versus
. . . . Respondents
Govt. of NCTD & Ors.
02.05.1986 That the applicant was appointed in Delhi
police as constable on 20th of October
1982. And has discharged his services
satisfactorily and is having satisfactory
service record.
18.12.2019 That to the surprise of the applicant,
the order dated 18.12.2019 is passed by
the DCP PCR and as per the same
order,
applicant stands retired from
the
service by exercising the power under
rule 56 of fundamental rules and rule 48
of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972.
That the applicant made a representation
06.01.2020
December 2019 to the
dated 31° of
committee against the
representation
order dated 18th December 2019 where by
the applicant has been retired from
service prematurely.
That the submissions made there in the
representation be read as part and parcel
of the present OA but is not repeated
here for the sake of brevity.
the applicant thereafter made
That
representations and applications under
RTI so in order to have some decisions
from the representation committee as in
situated case the
similarly
representation committee vide an order
dated 19 of February 2020 reinstated sub
inspector Ramesh Kumar and even the
intervening from the date of
period
retirement to that of free joining was
treated as period spent on duty for all
intents and purposes.
19.12.2020 That the applicant is annexing the order
dated 19 of February 2020 pass by the
representation committee in relation to
sub inspector Ramesh Kumar along with the
present way so in order to establish that
the representation committee has been
active during the past eight months but
the case of the applicant has been dealt
in a discriminatory manner and the
and his family has been
applicant
subjected to financial harness during
this difficult times of pandemic.
The applicant is placing its Reliance on
standing order number 184 of 2019 issued
by the commissioner of police and the
heading of the same standing order is
guidelines for premature retirement of un
suitable police officers. In the same
standing order there is a specific
clause of representation committee reads
under clause 4 representation
as
in order to decide the
committee
representation of the enrolled police
personnel and class IV employees to
prematurely the following
retire
c.
representation committee is constituted
for class 4 to inspectors
chairman commissioner of police Delhi
members special CP administration
members special CP crime.
That considerable time has lapsed but still
the representation commit tee has
not decided
the representation of the applicant and the
same act is causing great prejudice to the
it is a matter of
applicant and his family
since March 2020 the entire
record that
is in lockdown due to covid-19
country
pandemic and in this difficult time the
his family is living in
applicant and
financial hardness as the applicant is not
receiving any regular income in any form from
the department and on the other hand the
committee is selectively
representation
deciding the representations of the officials.
Hence the present O.A.
Through
(SACHIAHAUHAN)ADVOCATE
C-67(Basement)
Lajpat Nagar-I
New Delhi-110024
1
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH; NEW DELHI
O.A NO. of 2020
In the matter of
Rakam Singh, Age- 54 years,
S/o Sh. Bhopal Singh,
R/o- Village Milak Chakpur,
Murad Nagar, Distt. Ghaziabad (UP)
CerslLle €e) pl, ho .... Applicant
Group 'C'
Versus
1. Govt. of NCTD through
the Commissioner of Police,
PHO, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
PCR
Delhi
through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
3. Special Commissioner of Police ,
Administration
through Commissioner of Police,
PHO, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi. Respondents
1. PARTICULARS OF THE APPLICATION
Particulars of the order:
(i) That order dated 18 of December 2019 where
by the applicant is being retired from
services by exercising the power under rule 56
of fundamental rules and rule 48 (1) (a) (b) of
the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972.
(ii) That illegal act of representation committee
of sitting over the representation of the
applicant for the past eight months and on the
other hand depriving the applicant and his
2
family of regular income in any form during
the pandemic time.
2. JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL
That the applicant declares that the subject
matter of this application is within the
jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal Act,
1985.
3. LIMITATION
That the applicant declares that the present
application is well within the period of
limitation as prescribed under section 21 of
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
4. FACTS OF THE CASE.
4.1 That the applicant was appointed in Delhi
police as constable on 02.05.1986. And has
discharged his services satisfactorily and is
having satisfactory service record.
4.2 That to the surprise of the applicant, the
order dated 18.12.2019 is passed by the DCP
PCR and as per the same order, the applicant
stands retired from service by exercising
the power under rule 56 of fundamental rules
and rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972.
4.3 That the applicant made a representation dated
06.01.2020 to the representation committee
against the order dated 18th December 2019
where by the applicant has been retired from
service prematurely.
That the submissions made there in the
4. 4
representation be read as part and parcel of
5
3
the present OA but is not repeated here for
the sake of brevity.
the applicant thereafter made
4.5 That
representations and applications under RTI so
in order to have some decisions from the
representation committee as in similarly
situated case the representation committee
vide an order dated 19" of February 2020
reinstated sub inspector Ramesh Kumar and even
the period intervening from the date of
retirement to that of free joining was treated
as period spent on duty for all intents and
purposes.
4.6 That the applicant is annexing the order dated
19 of February 2020 pass by the
representation committee in relation to sub
inspector Ramesh Kumar along with the present
way so in order to establish that the.
representation committee has been active
during the past eight months but the case of
the applicant has been dealt in a
discriminatory manner and the applicant and
his family has been subjected to financial
harness during this difficult times of
pandemic.
4.7 The applicant is placing its Reliance on
standing order number 18 4 of 2019 issued by
the commissioner of police and the heading of
the same standing order is guidelines for
premature retirement of un suitable police
officers. In the same standing order there is
a specific clause of representation committee
reads as under clause 4 representation
committee in order to decide the
4
representation of the enrolled police
personnel and class IV employees to retire
prematurely the following representation
committee is constituted for class 4 to
inspectors
chairman commissioner of police Delhi
members special CP administration
members special CP crime.
4.8 That considerable time has lapsed but still
the representation commit tee has not decided
the representation of the applicant and the
same act is causing great prejudice to the
applicant and his family it is a matter of
record that since March 2020 the entire
country is in lockdown due to covid-19
pandemic and in this difficult time the
applicant and his family is living in
financial hardness as the applicant is not
receiving any regular income in any form from
the department and on the other hand the
representation committee is selectively
deciding the representations of the officials.
5.GROUNDS WITH LEGAL PROVISIONS
That the submissions made in the para 5 of the
present OA be read as part and parcel of the para
4 of the present OA but are not repeated here for
the sake of brevity.
That order dated 18 of December 2019 where by
the applicant is being retired from services by
exercising the power under rule 56 of
fundamental rules and rule 48 (1) (a) (b) of the
CCS (Pension) Rules 1972,That illegal act of
5
representation committee of sitting over the
representation of the applicant for the past
eight months and on the other hand depriving
the applicant and his family of regular income
in any form during the pandemic time are bad in
law and are impugned on following grounds:
5.1 That the applicant has been subjected to
hostile discrimination in violation of article
14 and 16 of the constitution of India. That
the applicant is annexing the order dated 19
of February 2020 pass by the representation
committee in relation to sub inspector Ramesh
Kumar along with the present OA so in order to
establish that the representation committee
has been active during the past eight months
but the case of the applicant has been dealt
in a discriminatory manner and the applicant
and his family has been subjected to financial
harness during this difficult times of
pandemic.
5. 2 That the applicant has made a representation
against the order of the premature retirement
as laid down in the standing order of the
respondents and the conduct of the respondents
is contrary to the guidelines laid down in
their own standing order. The applicant is
placing its Reliance on standing order number
184 of 2019 issued by the commissioner of
police and the heading of the same standing
order is "guidelines for premature retirement
of un suitable police officers". In the same
standing order there is a specific clause of
representation committee and the same reads
as under
"clause 4 Representation committee in order to
decide the representation of the enrolled
police personnel an~lass IV employees to
6
retire prematurely, the following
representation committee is constituted for
class 4 to inspectors
chairman commissioner of police Delhi
members special CP administration
members special CP crime."
5.3 That delay in deciding the representation of
the applicant is causing great prejudice to
the applicant. That considerable time has
lapsed but still the representation committee
has not decided the representation of the
applicant and the same act is causing great
prejudice to the applicant and his family it
is a matter of record that since March 2020
the entire country is in lockdown due to
covid-19 pandemic and in this difficult time
the applicant and his family is living in
financial hardness as the applicant is not
receiving any regular income in any form from
the department and on the other hand the
representation committee is selectively
deciding the representations of the officials.
5.4 That submissions made in the representation to
representation committee be read as part and
parcel of the present OA but is not repeated
here for the sake of brevity. The impugned
order is challenged on all the grounds as
mentioned in the representation made to the
representation committee and thus the order is
bad in law.
5.5 That a Government Servant can be compulsorily
retired from service under FR 56 [j], if it is
in the public interest i.e. the Government
servant is dead wood and is a burden on
government exchequer. The applicant had been
doing his duties with utmost sincerity and
7
with best efforts till the date of retirement
and even the applicant had been assigned the
duties in addition of his routine duties,
which the applicant had been performing
diligently and there is even no complaint
against him regarding the non performance and
inefficiency. Hence applicant compulsory
retirement is totally illegal. The applicant
APAR of the previous years are all above
benchmark and thus it is crystal clear that
the applicant is not a dead wood not a burden
on government exchequer.
5.6 That compulsory retirement under FR 56(j)
cannot be inflicted as a matter of punishment
or short cut to a departmental enquiry. The
applicant even on the ground of integrity is
absolutely clean. In the APAR there is not
mention of any complaint related to integrity
issues and thus the impugned orders are being
passed on extraneous facts and on suspicion
and surmises and thus bad in law.
5.7 That the applicant submitted that exercise of
FR 56 (j) in his case is totally unwarranted
and not at all in public interest. The
applicant is a person with sound heal th. The
applicant had not availed much leaves during
his service career. The applicant service
record will speak of his leave period record.
It shows applicant dedication towards duties
and his health conditions. The exercise of FR
56 ( j) in his case is hit by malice in law as
it is arbitrary and further based on
extraneous matters not tangible in eyes of
law. The decision is based on suspicion and
surmise without due application of mind on
relevant facts and service record. On the
8
contrary this is the time for applicant to
discharge his duties in a much more effective
manner due to the knowledge and exposure
acquired by him in the previous year of
service. The applicant continuous in service
is in public interest, the applicant have
acquired experience and knowledge because of
his discharge of service with a department and
future year of service, the
during his
department would be the beneficiary of his
and experience. The applicant
knowledge
placing in reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble
Jabalpur Bench in OA 985/2016 dated 10.4.2019
Raj Bhatia:
"12. Hon' ble Supreme Court in Umedbhai M.
Patel (supra) has very clearly held that
the order of compulsory retirement shall
not be passed as a short cut to avoid
departmental enquiry, when such course is
more desirable. In the present case, two
chargesheets are pending, but the
respondents have decided not to bring it
to the logical conclusion, which is not
attributable to the applicant.
13. The integrity column in the APARS,
right from 2001-02 to 2015-16 (Annexure
RU/1), does not have even a word which
may cast aspersions on the integrity of
the applicant.
14. The grading in the last 10 years has
been "very good" and above.
15. The pen picture depicts him as
intelligent energetic, hardworking
officer having cordial relations with
all.
16. Applying the principles detailed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umedbhai M.
Patel (supra) in the instant case, we
come to the conclusion that the rules of
compulsory retirement have not been
correctly applied in the present case. We
are guided by the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in Shobha Ram Raturi vs.
Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and
others (Civil Appeal No.11325 of 2011)
regarding payment of back wages
3
9
17. In the result, the Original
Application 1S allowed with the following
directions:
(i) Impugned order dated 08.06.2016
(Annexure A-1) is hereby quashed.
(ii) As a consequence of quashment of the
impugned order, the applicant is directed
to be reinstated in service immediately.
(iii) The applicant shall be entitled to
consequential benefits, including arrears
of salary.
(iv) The qua shmen t of the impugned order
will not be an impediment for initiating
appropriate disciplinary proceedings, if
so desired by the competent authority.
(v) No costs."
5.8 That the work conduct and performance of
applicant has always remained appreciable and
the services of the applicant have always been
appreciated by the seniors as a token of
confirmation all the previous record of the
applicant if scrutinize in depth then the
efficiency of the applicant will be proved.
5.9 That the applicant is putting its Reliance on
the provisions of standing order number 184 of
2009 which clearly records that entire service
record of the individual should be considered
the screening committee should consider the
entire service recording including all
material and relevant information available on
record about the employee before coming to any
conclusion.
5.10 That once in relation to one criminal case in
the entire service record of the applicant, in
10
relation to the same the applicant has already
faced departmental enquiry and thus to make
the same as ground to inflict the punishment
of premature retirement under the garb of FR
56 ( j) is hit by double jeopardy. The
applicant is placing its reliance on Article
20 clause 2 of constitution of India that a
person cannot be punished twice for the same
offence as the same will be hit by double
jeopardy.
5.11 That the present impugned act in the last
phase of the life of the applicant in which
the maximum responsibilities related to family
commitments are to be discharged comes as a
shocker. The monetary obligations are heavy
and the retrial benefits will be denied
results almost into dismissal from service for
the applicant.
6. EXHAUSTATION OF REMEDIES
That the applicant declares that he has availed
all the remedies available to him under the rules.
7. MATTER NOT PREVIOUSLY FILED
That the applicant declares that he had not
previously filed any application, writ or suit
regarding the matter in respect of which, O.A is
filed before any court or the bench of Tribunal, nor
any such application, writ or suit is pending before
any of them.
8. RELIEFS SOUGHT
In view of facts in para-4 above the applicant prays
for the following relief:-
(ii) To quash and set aside the Order dated 18 of
December 2019 where by the applicant is being
retired from services by exercising the power
11
under rule 56 of fundamental rules and rule
48 (1) (a) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972
and to further direct the respondents to
reinstate the applicant in service with all
consequential benefits including seniority and
promotion and pay allowances .
(ii) That the representation committee be directed
to decide the representation of the applicant
made to the representation committee by a
speaking order after considering all the
submissions and pleas of the applicant in a
time bound manner that too after calling the
applicant in personal hearing.
Or/and
( i) Any other relief which this Hon' ble Court
deems fit and proper may also awarded to
the applicant.
9. INTERIM ORDER, IF ANY, PRAYED FOR
N.A
10. APPLICATION BY POST.
N.A
11. PARTICULARS OF THE POSTAL ORDERS IN RESPECT OF THE
APPLICATION FEE.
Bank Draft of Rs. 50/- bearing No...30 )8 .............
.................... #
Issued on 2All2o. eon.G:R..iap Rel
a
12. LIST OF ENCLOSURES.
AS PER INDEX
- Applicant
(Rakam Singh)
VERIFICATION:
I, Rakam Singh, Age- 54 years, S/o Sh. Bhopal
Singh, R/o- Village Milak Chakpur, Murad Nagar, Distt.
Ghaziabad (UP) ,presently at Delhi, do hereby verify
that the contents of paras 1 to 4 of the application
are true to my personal knowledge and paras no. 5 to
12 of the application are believed to be true on legal
advice and that I have not suppressed any material
fact.
Verified on this day of
ates }}ho
a• a
l
Applicant
(Rakam Singh)
THROUGH
SACHIN~UHAN)ADVOCATE
C-67(basement)
Lajpat Nagar-I,
New Delhi
. · ..
ORDER
WHEREAS I, Sharat Kumar Sinha, DCPPCR, New Delhi \s. of the ·o pinion that it is in the public . in terest.to,do so:,.
., -_ ·- ..···.
..
Now therefore, in exercise of the powersconferred by clause (@)(ii) of Rule 56of the
Fundamental Rules/Rule 48(1)(a)(b) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules-1972, I, Sharat Kumar
Sinha, DCPIPCR, New
Delhi, hereby retire Ct. (Exe.) Rakam 7150/PCR (PIS No. 28861417) SIngh,
. with immediate ·e ffect; he having already corpieted 30 years of qualifying service for pension on the
02.05.2016 has
been paid a sumof Rs. 1,40,859/- in his salary account equivalent of the amount of his pay plus allov.iances for·a period of.three months calculated at the same at wt)ich he rate was drawing immediately before his retirement. He deposited all govt.belongings maki ng departure entry. before . He is not in possessio n of Govt Accommodation. . . . . , i~: · J . , · · •· · .· • · . . · ..· . . . . . . . (SHA~UMAR S;NHA) IPS . . . DY. GOMMISStONER OFPOLl(;E, SIP/O.B. POLICE CONTROL ROOM : DEt_HJ."
'Nb:' :~ 611t""~ · ~f.071/ /WF (P-II)/PCR, dated Delhi the &/
i /9-( rJ
· · ·· Copy forwarded for information and n,ecessary action the:- to ·
.1... · .. Spli CP/Ops., Jt.:cPibps. AddL CP/Qps:.&Modm., Delhi/New Delhi.
2. bCsP/Headquart~t; Estt:, Delhi & DCPIGenl. Admn., Delhi. . . . . . . , . , .. . .3 .. All Districts/ Units DCsP including P/PTC arid FRRO, · Delhi/New Delhi with the request . to supply 'NO DEMAND CERTIFICATE' within 15 dayspositively. In c:ase no reply is receiyed,wiJhin the stipulated period, it .. will be presumed that there is nothing outstanding against the individual ir,i theif,DistricUUnits. . . . .. . 4 ·, · ocP11.:r.1PHa, De1hL ·· · i : .. · · , ; '5.. ' ' so fo _D CP ~ Addk QCP( PCR. .. ( . ' ··. ,.. . .... ' ·.· ' 6,. PAO-IV, Tis Hazari, Delhi & GPF Ce,11, .Old Sectt.; Delhi.
7. AcsPiConf)dehtial & Petsonnel Branch/PHO, Delhi . . ... ,s.·. All ACsP/ltispi:sjpcR, Oelhi: .._. ·.. _··-• : . . . . .. .. . . ·. . .
-:9.' ' Branch Manager, Axis Bank, 4/6B Asaf':Ali Road, New Delhi, and BranchMar:iager, State Bank of India, Netaji Subhash Marg, Dariya Ganj , New Pelhj, · · · · · · 10~ . lnsprs. C~A:_BUPHQ,P.Br./PHQ, Esttj3'r.J PHQ &Q.1\ Cell/PHO, Delhi:> . . · .•.. ·.: .. _· · 1 L . lnspr. Admn./New belhi Zone/PCR'witli one spare copy for delivering' the same t6 the above said pcil!Ge officer under hisproper signature with date, if he is_ not on duty, ttie same•niay be delivered at his residence . by' deputing a responsible officer at 911ce and receipt copy of the ·.said or.deir may be sent to this office for < :;,,--
·. record .. He may also be directed to; collect' the three months advance salary checque frqr.n LO/PCR immediately ..·· ..·. ·. . . . . . . · . . -•. · . · · · .· -·
42. RI/PCR forma~ingneces_s ary DD Entry in this regard and also to inform the concern Zone/office atcbrdingly ...
13. Head Glerk/PCR De!hL , .. . . . ' . . . . . .. . . • .
14. Acctt./PCR for necessary action with one spare copy to intimate whethe( ~ny loan/advance etc, is due against · the.ind1vidJ.a1 or otherwise. If sq: the details there of may be fumished)o 'this branch imm ediately and the authority concerned may also tie irifc;,rmed accordingly. Besides, the LPC (in triplicate} and recondliation statem_ent of HBA.be supplied fo•this"brarich immediately. ' . ,. . . '. '
15. All Head Asstts)PCR, Delhi. . ·.·_··.. . . .• . . . . .. . .. . ·. 16. HACRIPCR with onespare copy for making necessary entry and also append a copy of the same in the Ch.
. Roll. The Ch. Roll duly -<:ompleted in air respect wih completion certificate as weii /3S pay fixation chart may be sent to WelfareBranch/PCRwithin twodays positively. . -"
17. HAP& CAIP CR for information & necessary action. . . , ,· • · . ; 18. SIP/PC_R;_for placing copy of a thesame of in the F.M. the said ASI(SG)..
,, · · . . · 1 ~- Ab.~entee.. Clerk(SIP/HACR)/PCR Jq -finalize _,tl")e pending absentee/medical case if any, and necessary · : -~ - _: · intimation _be sent to, HACRJPCR & Acctt./PCR," Delhi, within seven days otherwise it will be presumed that . nothing is pe_nding against him. , ·; ., . · ., •. --. . _.,,,p. , D0/PC_R line fer.making necessa~action.. • . · · ·. · , •. ·.
21. • LO Branch, Clothing, ISDN Cell,&;'Gehl, Stores/PCR, Delhi.
22. PA, II·:· & ,Ill-_. I: Welfare ..
Branch/PCR, Delhi.
.·· .· . ---:· ... ·. ·. ·,.... ·- -,., ·.·"'O
-h..cs.
· ~·.·.
...
... -~ · ~OP'J· -~f Origi nal
'• .
gcuntrts
'
et
. '
--. _;·,_. ·.·_
·-.:· . ·. ·- Sachin Chauhan
. ·...
- .. · Adfocate·
.....
T
THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL
Commissioner of Police,
(Chairman Representation Committee), Delhi Police Headquarters, ITO, New Delhi Subject: Representation against the arbitrary, highly objectionable & unconstitutional order of premature retirement issued vide No. 30975-31074/WF (P-II)/PCR dated 18.12.2019 Respected Sir, Vide above order the applicant has been prematurely retired by exercising the powers conferred by clause (j) (ii) of Rule 56 of F.R./Rule 48(1) (a) (b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) . Rules, 1972 and thrown the applicant and . its family on road to face extreme starvation. Since the present order has caused unbearable mental pain, agony & trauma to the entire family as such the applicant is constrained to initiate the present representation in view of existing provisions for considering the case afresh as it seemed that before taking such drastic action the entire facts have not been taken into account. The cogent grounds of considering the case afresh are as under:-
1) That years ago in 2006 one Kamal Singh father of Kavita W/o Mehak Singh (nephew of applicant) got registered a case FIR No. 264/06 u/s 304-B/498-
A and ¾ Dowry Act, PS Murad Nagar, Distt. Ghaziabad, UP against the family of my brother and the applicant on falsified grounds.
2) That the applicant was placed under suspension vide Order No. 2366- 2400/HAPIP-IV/PCR dated 15.02.2007 w.e.f. 10.10.2006 and later on reinstated in service from suspension vide Order No. 2095-2135/HAP/P- lll/lst B. OAP dated 28.02.2013.
That in the same matter a parallel departmental enquiry was also initiated against the applicant and the punishment forfeiture of two years approved service permanently has been awarded to the applicant vide Order No. 14400-14430/HAP (P-I)/Ist Bn. DAP dated 19.09.2014 (copy enclosed).
That the other issue to be also equally considered is that while awarding the above punishment the entire suspension period has also been decided as period not spent on duty for all intents & purposes in the same order dated 19.09.2014.
This Anneure is the True Co~/ 01 Original ~ument Sachi n Chauhan Advocate
5) 1( That since the criminal case was still pending trial hence no statutory appeal against the above administrative punishment was initiated.
6) That the above case was finalized and the hon'ble trial court vide its judgement dated 04.09.2008 sentenced life imprisonment to the applicant on arbitrary grounds without considering the entire facts and the role· of applicant.
7) That badly aggrieved with the unjustified sentence order the applicant moved the hon'ble High Court vide Criminal Appeal 6510/2008 which is still pending consideration in the court.
I
8) That on the basis of conviction & sentence order the applicant was again
' . .
dismissed from service under Article 311 (2) (a) of Constitution of India vide Order No. 32869-969/HAP (P-IV)/PCR dated 25.11.2008 (copy enclosed).
9) That the appellate authority vide its Order No. 344/P.Sec/Joint CP/Ops.
Dated 04.06.2009 also rejected the appeal made against the above dismissal order. The issue to be concentrated is that the appellate authority even did not bother to consider that in the same matter the applicant has already been punished in the departmental enquiry as stated above and discarded the appeal on arbitrary grounds.
10) That subsequently in pursuance of the directions of the hon'ble CAT vide judgement dated 21.05.2010 passed in OA No. 1667/10 the applicant was reinstated in service from dismissal vide its Order No. 17110-17200/HAP (P-1)/PCR dated 28.06.2010 (copy enclosed) and was kept deemed to be under suspension from the date of dismissal i.e. 25.11.2008.
11) That the issue to be looked into is that the criminal appeal against the above sentence order is still pending in the hon'ble High Court of Delhi but meanwhile the applicant has been ousted from the department in such highly objectionable manner and against the tenets of natural justice.
12) That on the basis of above detail no iota of doubt remains thatfor the same misconduct the applicant has already been punished departmentally in the form of punishment forfeiture of two years approved service permanently. Secondly by deciding the suspension period as not spent on duty vide order dated 19.09.2014 and huge monetary loss has also been caused to the applicant. Thirdly meanwhile the applicant has also been dismissed from service for the same cause and thus the present order of prematurely retirement is severe violation of the existing rules/norms and the glaring and fit case of double/triple/fourth jeopardy.
.+ 12 • -3vgina! Document ·S achin~ t1an Advocate I Needless to mention that the Constitution of India and judiciary both strictly prohibits for double jeopardy and in order to strengthen the version the applicant would like to cite few of them for your kind consideration.
Fundamental right which is guaranteed under Article 20 (2) of Constitution of India incorporates the principles of Double Jeopardy which means that person must not be punished twice for the offence. Doctrine against Double Jeopardy in English common law that no man shall be punished twice, if it appears that it is for one and the same cause. It also follows the 'audi alterum partem rule' which means that no person can be punished for the same offence more thar. ones. And Ha person is punished twice for the same offence it is termed Double Jeopardy.
5In R.N. Arti Vs. Union of India 1979 SLJ 12 Delhi Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that Constitution forbids double jeopardy. lf a person has been prosecuted for some offence previously he cannot be prosecuted for it again irrespective of whether he was acquitted or convicted in the earlier enquiry. Thus if a proper enquiry has been held and finding given in that enquiry whether of guilt or innocence, no power is left with the government to hold again a second enquiry or view on the same allegations.
In State Vs. Man Singh AIR 1958 M.P. 413 Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that in an enquiry against Govt. Servant a properly constituted authority has arrived at a decision then its successor cannot enter upon a reconsideration of the matter so as to arrive at another and totally different decision. Whatever the fault of the government servant might have been when once it was condoned and decision was taken by a competent authority and it was acted upon, the succeeding authority could not purport to enter a reconsideration of the matter so as to arrive at another and totally different decision.
In State of Haryana Vs. Roshan Lal Sharma 1970 SLR Punjab & Haryana High Court, Parkash Nath Vs. Financial Commissioner Punjab 1972 Punjab 601 their lordships in Punjab & Haryana High Court held in unequivocal terms that 'The fundamental principle that no one shall be punished or put in peril twice for the same matter, is applicable even to orders passed on departmental enquiries.
The above leading judgements of various courts are sufficient enough to infer a rational & logical decision that double jeopardy is strictly impermissible in any eyes of law hence the present order of premature retirement based on unreasonable grounds needs to be vacated on merits of the case.
The above sequence of events apparently prove that the applicant is frequently being punished for the same & identical cause which is completely against the This Anns ure is the ent Tru'e Cnpy of Original Doc~ Sachin Chauhan Advocate ' .
\ I tenets of naturai justice and larger violation of existing norms & Constitution of India.
13) That it is pertinent to mention here that except the above false case no other case has ever been registered against the applicant and the entire service record of applicant more than three decades is completely neat & clean without any blot.
14) That record is evident that timely information of above false implication was conveyed and nothing has been concealed/hide from the department.
15) That in addition to above it is pertinen. to mention that the work, conduct & performance of applicant has always remained appreciable and the services of applicant have always been appreciated by the seniors. As a token of confirmation all the previous record of the applicant may please be scrutinized in depth.
16) Besides anything contained above it is equally important to concentrate that what the law & Standing Order No. 184/2009 erected for the particular issue, says. It clearly dictates that -
a) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable.
b) The entire service record of the individual should be considered.
c) The Screening Committee should consider the entire service record including all material and relevant information available on record about the employee before coming to any conclusion.
17) That it is commonly said that the previous record of the individual works as a mirror and reflect his conduct, character and modus-sprandi of working. The applicant was recruited in the department in the year 1986 and since the date of enlistment performed the assigned responsibilities with sincerity & keen devotion to the entire satisfaction of superiors leaving behind no room of complaint. It is pertinent to mention that prior to the present unfortunate incident the entire service record of the applicant is neat & clean and the entire scenario has already been explained above in length.
Therefore it is a fit case where special attention of Screening Committee is required to bring the reality & factum at home and the applicant hopes that your, good self would prefer to consider these mandatory legal points to maintain the spirit of law.
This/Annouro is the
T,L : : .1,
Or--· :1a~cur.~")i'l
' 1
\
18) it is further added that the applicant is in the last phase of life and already over-
burdened over the responsibilities of family's commitments including the marriages of young children and after snatching the present alone livelihood the applicant has been reached on road with no other alternate of job & shelter to survive. Hence the present order of premature retirement is more stringent for the applicant on humanitarian grounds also.
19) That the other equally important to be considered is that the service of about six years is still left and is mandatory to serve to complete the domestic responsibilities.
20) That it appears that the Screening .Committee while taking the decision of premature retirement has not kept in mind the above crucial issues and put the applicant in extreme embarrassing position which cannot be explained in words but can only be understood practically.
HUMBLE PRAYER It is, therefore, humbly prayed before your good self with folded hands that in the light of above facts and circumstances the impugned order of premature retirement dated 18.12.2019 may please be reconsidered and vacated and allowed the applicant to complete the rest service of about six years in the interest of natural justice and oblige. The applicant shall ever remain grateful for this kind & noble act. The applicant may also please be allowed to appear in O.R. to explain the more facts in person.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Yours faithfully, Encl: As above ~ (Rakam Singh) Ex. Constable (Executive) 7150/PCR (PIS 28861417) Mobile : 8800406028 Permanent Address Village Milak Chakpur, PS Murad Nagar,Distt. Ghaziabad (UP) Ti1is i IS he True Cy of Original Document Sac~hauhan Advocate ;°.: :.\:~·:.: ·:_..,. . .
. - ....
. . .
.. . -&\r-S
3I n.n I
elk&Ad:di.dk
. . 'i•,·~~
·. . : ..P;- 1~/ :: · ·
· '- ·. ~. :
1:.
.At1,.· tllt· ~ '4K\.i01\l/d$;il'km, ~ -~ :~ n~tkln 1.;mnmu~ . [email protected]/gt»co, beth1 iae Meo. to.4394/Vu/CM49. »vet ·ffl',nah ·:K\Ut~) No~o..,u,,. (P.~S. .No.~ ) who WI!• ;cttr~I. ·-~ Ii ·•~•~-- fil vtd.i d~ i;t(a. diilcr Ji.i<tj1-/f~ t:;;.lMiucSJtfty~ l~t~1 ·· itDl~t·llSl/~1·Ct1.~ ,; Ol,t.Qd \l.lt.20J.9f .u tUJnb)'. ,.tr.a11i11Utd u _;,.. . .....it \ I A~.dl.. c.P{fl(~ ft.II Dl."itrlcl.;,J &lJnir~ tJ'\t!h.tdJ:t'\6 f .RRO. /g Ptu,d.pl,! / PTC N{'w D1·ih \ I-'iggidanxu. Dellu.
Dai:P~Gst\... H~dqt.1Artm·~- &. !. 1' .C11nt\~, PHQ, New DelJ1l. PAO..X"Vl;, P...~11\ Smgh Road. N~w Owl ~. AU AOP-.5..~ri•ty, N~~ f;)itlhi S.O, ~$p«:tn.l CP.,-~utity, New Dttht 5-.0t, ,o Joint CP,:-&-..":t1rlt}'. N~w Dcl.bl
5.(lif,, to Atktt. (:dP/~~:u.dty, [X:aP/ f,\'.k1L DC.".f.P-%t·urlty~ N~w 'Dl:lih'I Alt lll3i-:Stl!C\irlty, Ni!!w Diifhl..
1. lnspe-e·tor M.1' .•&cu.tiW" Unit., N~\.., l)~th1, , ~!~.tl~~Aflb:\.Ibs.J.~'1!!.!L'J~__g~JJJ1J:!1.iillffl1..ll-k~~--J:~ ~ ~u,, .t.hr;
L!l.41¥l!l~~ !l:f\mr& . .ti..\lin$,..~ JJUlm.Ui1£....IS:\~,i~_p,E\'d <sr! m,Y..lt£_.r i,il 1 ~1" ~l , 4roding'y, '.. hi'J:f~ffll'. t-\o:mn. &tt'.1 HN1d A'51!tlS.1'.tU'l.t:il; S!i<turiJr, Mt~W p.--,fat • Inchnrge Intra DPEeutity. New Delhi.
- h;tth'1r:~t~C.'lt,th't:t~ SL,:u·t1·, ~ol,GP't1ent1 S-tr.,r,! (., ;q. 1li/ai,-!.~l"l:~t1;W·, N~•1,,c I }elbt • r1w ~n~l'l:mt1tl Duty OHi'l'.'l'!'f lo ,1(1~(rn1fr,f~ly isif: '\'l'C! i:ht1 s~ ,tV~.i.rHl\ h,: l <"/'f'' f~'. ,..+,. . ;1:1;
be ~M-t to thii!i: OW-c".1: lm· lu'tLH'1": tti!ll'f•Jt.l\f1~ :,1; ,,1 \ n cird ,., Tl1is A.....,r ~:wr9 is tr,e True Cu.JY uf Or19inal ~ument Sachin Chauhan Advocate Typed Copy ofpage No. 18 OFFICE OF THE DY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE : SECURITY ; HQ VINA Y MARG, CHANK YA PURI, NEW DELHI-I 10021 TELEPHONE NO. -011 ILLEGIBLE ORDER As per the recommendations/ decision of the Representation Committee illegible to this Office by DCP-Vigilance, Delhi the Memo. No. 1334//Vig./CA(AC- D), Dated 1/2020,, SI (Exe) Ramesh Kumar, No. D-2446 (PIS No. 16860083) who was retired security under F.R. 56j) vide this office Order No. 11050/Pension Cell- Security, Dated illegible 1.2019 & No. 1204112139/Pension Cell-Security, Dated 14.11.2019, is hereby re-instated in illegible with immediate effect.
The period intervening the date of Premature Retirement i.e. 14.11.2019 illegible of re-joining service is hereby decided as the period Spent on Duty and would be ordered as regular service for all intents and purposes until unless the same is finally decided otherwise by the Competent Authority.
Sd/-
19/2/2020 DY. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE SECURITY (HQ) NEW DELHI No. 14611560/Pension Cell-Security, Delhi Dated 19.02.2020 Copy forwarded for information and necessary action to:-
1. Addl. CsP/DCsP all Districts & Units including F.R.R.O. & Principal/PTTC, New Delhi
2. DCP-Vigilance, Delhi
3. DCsP-Estt., Headquarters, & LT. Centre, PHQ, New Delhi.
4. PAO-SVI, Man Singh Road, New Delhi
5. ALL ACsP- Security, New Delhi
6. S.O. to Special C.P. -Security, New Delhi
7. S.Os. to Joint C.P. Security, New Delhi
8. S.Os. to Addl. CsP/Security, DCsP/Addl. DCsP-Security, New Delhi
9. All Rls-Security, New Delhi
10. Inspector M.T. Security Unit, New Delhi
11. Inspector M.T. Security Unit, New Delhi
12. Accountant-Security, The amount (3 Months' Pay & Allowances) already paid to individual names above n lieu of 03 months' Notice period may be adjusted accordingly.
13. Inspector Admn. & all Head Assistants, Security, New Delhi
14. Incharge Intra DP-Security, New Delhi
15. Incharge Clothing Store, Kot, General Store & Mess, Security, New Delhi
16. The concerned Duty Officer to accordingly inform the SI against his receipt which may be sent to this Officer for future reference and record.
This Annexure is the True Copy of Original Document $ Sachin Cha uha n Advocate [)(ll(OO•••••••_..,,
---················ .
DELHI POLICE STANDING ORDE~ N0.18__1./201,9 GUIDELINES FOR PREMATURERETIREMENT OF UNSUITABLE POLICE OFFIC_ERS I. INTRODUCTION . Various instructions have been ·issued oh the abov.c subject· of compulsory retirement of unsuitable police officers. The S1.ipreme Court of India in State of Gujarat Vs Umedbhai M. Patel, 2001 (3) SC 314 has . observed the following:-
(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are 1io longer useful to the general ad!Tiinistraiion, ·th.e offiCer can be comJ)ulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.
(ii} o.rdinarilj, tl1e ·orde.r of colllpulsorj Tetireffient is .not to be ticated _as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Cons ti tu tion.
(iii) "For better administration, it is necessary to chop of[ dead wood but the order of compulsory. retirement can be passed after havi ,; due regard._to. the entire service record of the officer." · 11 0
(iv) Any adverse entries made in. the confidential record sha 1 ,, f db . d . . · · note o an· . e -~1ve~ ue weightage in passing such order.· · a. <en
(v) Even ttn-comrnunicaied·entries be taken into·consideration.
i,; Uie confidential· .
record ca
· .
i
a so
(vi) 11
The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a sho ..
cut_ to ·avoid Departmental enqttiry when such course is t
(vii} desirable. mor
If the officer was given a.promotion des ·t t · ·
he conn4entiai record, si is a.,3,"?]" "gs
I c,pie ma 4,
• c 1 avour o the o 1ccr.
me
True C ,y oi 6ye 1
Sachi n Cha uhan Scanned by CamScanner,
Advocate
(
v111 Compulsory retirement shall not e ·
.. ') mensttre. b · TIJJoscd
11 as a punitive
In every review the entire service records should be considered. · The expression 'service ;.ecord' will take in consideration all relevant reco s and hence the review should not be confined to the consideration of the rd ACR/~PAR dossier. · The personal file of the officer may contain valuable rnatenal. Similarly, U1e work and performance of the officer could also be assessed by looking into files dealt with by him or in any papers or reports PF&Pared and submitted by Him. It would be useful if the concerned District/Unit puts t6gether all the data available about the officers and Prepares a comprehensive ·brief for consideration by th e Review· Comm_ittee.
taken · Even uncommunic'1ted
mto col1siden1tion. · · reriiarkS
· · ii1 the . ACRs/APARs may
· be
In the case of those officers who have been promoted during the last five Years, the previous entries in. the ACRs may be taken into account if officer-was the basi promoted on the·bas.
s of merit.. _ is of seniority cum
_ fitness, and not on
As far as integrity. is considered, thie following observations., ol the Hon'ble Supreme may be kept Court, ivhiJe uph_o·lding co.mpulsory retirement in a case, in_ view:
"The officer would live by reputation built around him. In an @Ppropriate. case, there may ot be su!icient evidences to punitive disciplinary. actiori of removai from service. . But his conduct and rej:>utatic;,i:i" is s,:ich. that his continuance in service would ..be interest " a menace to· public service and injurious to public Thus··while considering integriiy-of an employee, actions or decisions taken by the employee which do not appear to be above board, complain+ :ceived against him, or suspicious property .transactions, for which there " o e sufficient evidence to initiate departmental proceedings, may ICC ,, d: my· &ci t judgemieiiof he ck car ii€ case#,"? LP.S.- (TN:19'56) 1n.K.I{andaswarpy 1996 andaswar 539; 1 t h Vs-Union Th JJ ofincha 'bl S & /\nr,_ AIRh277, 1995.. SCC (6) 16. is re evan ere. . _e ,on e upreme y, 5. , Court uple Jd his compulsory •. retirement under· provisions · .
of the relevant • Rules.
. 'l I reports of conduct unbecoming of a Government servant Simi a; y, basis for compulsory retirement. As per the Hon'ble may alsoC our Supreme · State of u.o.
or"; in · . and Others
. . ,Vs
. Vijay Kumar Jain, Appeal
·
(civil) 2083 of 2002: .2
Thi.pr3ure is the
z Copy
Tru3 "5; O
or original Docent
Sachin Chauhan Sc ner
-Advocate Scanned by C;1m cam
92
present post, and then his fitness/competence to continue in the lower post f · l · ,.. ~ l Id be om where he had been previously promotecl sou considered.
(iv) The specific norms for efficiency/effectiveness cannot be really laid down since they pertain to the nature of the work in each particular d epartment would vary from department to department. H owe ver ' these norms should be similar to norms laid down in the APRs of the employees concerned relating to his performance and efflciency / effectiveness. Specific non~1s on two to three paramctci:s.
should be laid down for specific jobs. An illustrative list of norms 1s given below: · • For Teachers the pass percentage achieved by their students .
For Revenue staff norms relating to revenue work, such as '> mutations attested, jamabandies completed, revenue pass boo »k s issued etc. · • For engineering staff, norms relating to timely project implementations without time and cost over-runs etc ..
The concerned Adrninistra.tive Department should, for each specific category of employees under its control, identify Lwo to three key' result areas/ norms against which the efficiency/ effectiveness of the ·Government employees should be considered. These norn-1s shoulci. be communicated to the Screening Committee by thc Administrate Depa,:tment in advance ..
(vi) While the entire record of the employee should be considered at the time of review, no employee should ordinarily be retired on grounds . of ineffectiveness, if his services during the preceding 5 yen.rs, or where he has been promoted on higher post during years his service in the higher post have been fond satisfactory.
(vii) No employee should ordinarily be retired on grounds of ineffectiveness, if in any event he would be retiring on superannuation within a period of onc year fr om considering of his case. the cb.tc..: or
(ix) This provision of Rule for prcmatt1rc rctircmeut should not be us·ri . f" l .:>l.\ I for. reduction o surp us staff or nn economy men.sun.'.. Si milady, iL should not be used to retire a Government servant on rounds f fi' f : s So spectic act o! misconduct as a shortcut to initiating form41 disciplinary proceedings against him. The appropriate author@, shall not, however, be ·precluded to take action against {, Tht re is he Tr~;·c~:-'f of Or1~inal o~ment Sachin Chauhan Advocate 98 "If conduct of a government employee bec~mes u unbecomingl" -vicesto th thee public interest or obstructs the efficiency in l?ub ic set m· f),loyec • govcrnrnent has an absolute right to compu I. so11rlY reet.rc 1 sue 1 1 an e in public interest."
Apart from the above, the Apex Court has categorically stated in the State of ammu and Kashmir Vs. Farid Ahmed Tak, 2019, that "(i) The Annual Performance Report of ·the Nori-Gazetted employees are neither normally. written very carefully nor· are they fully available Ill a large number of cases. The Screening Committee should, therefore, consider the entire service record including all material and relevant information available on record about the employee before coming to any conclusion.
(ii) The Government employees whose integrity is doubtful should be retired. For the purpose of establishing that the integrity of the Government servant is doubtful the following information/ records could be considercd.' . · • Number and nature of complaints received, if any, against the Government servant .pertaining to doubtful integrity or corruption.
• Number and nature of various audit paras pending, if any, against the Government Servant in which concerned govt. servant is found to be involved.
• Number and nature of vigilance cases pending inquiry, if any, against the Government servant.
• Adverse entries in the APRs concerning doubtful integrity, if any.
• Number and nature of departmental inquiries/preliminary inquiries, if any, which are going on against the concerned Government servant. · · .
• Number and nature ·of administrative censures/warnings/ punishments pertaining to corruption/doubtful integrity against the Government servant, if any.
• General reputation of the employees.
(iii) Government employee who is found to be ineffective should be retired. The basic consideration in identifying such employees should be fitness/competence of- the. employee to continue the post, which he is holding. If he is i1ot found fit to continue 11n his 3 This/'- nna::ure is the True Coy of Original Oo~ent Sachin Chauhan Advocate II Government ser t t . .. .
even at th . . van °_ i_etue him prematurely at Lhc: rc:kvanL tirn<:, at time, specific act of misconduct has come Lo notice." i II .. SCREENING COMMITTEE.
A Screening Co ·tt . .
to th
c rank of Sub-I mmttee . to consider the cascs of police personnel .
up in each di+., 1spector and Class-IV employees shall be constituted A] strict/unit consisting of district/units DCsP as Chairman, one #,,"%° concerned district/sit and ore Ac/ioryetaes . ? not thc1e) 13 to be as members. The Screcnmg Comrnitt<::c after crio, considering all relevant record of each individual in view guidelinesof. gven herein-above and criteria given herein-under will submit its recommendation to the Single Review Committee through OCP /Vigilance whi~h has· the power Lo make substant.ivc appointment to the post or service from where the govt. servant is required .to be revicwc:d for taking final decision . in each case .
· · Similarly ·in respect of Inspectors . o{ Delhi Police, a Screening committee consisting of concerned ·.Jt. CP/ /\ddl. CP as Chairman, concerned DCP, district/unit and J\CP/HQ/Vigilance as members shaH be constituted to consider their cases. The said Screening Committee shall submit its recommendation to the Single r{cview Com.mitlcc through' DCP /Vigilance for final decision in each.case at Pl-IQ level.
.III. SINGLE REVIEW COMMITTEE A Single Review Committee for reviewing the cases for premature retirement under F.R. 56(J) and Rule 48 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules 1972 of ·police Officials who have atfaincd 55 yc8.rs of age or have completed of .30 years of qual.i~y_ing service is also constituted at PHQ's level as under:-' Tor Class-IV to Inspectors - Chairman Spl. CP /Vigilance.
Member Spl. CP/Hdqrs.
Member DCP /Establishment
Member DCP /Vigilance
,rig the 't
rnis An%lo@inal Documen
Trud Coi)'} o ' . }:
5
Sachin"Chauhan
Advocate
------·-
<
IV. REPRESENTATION COMMITTEE
l n or d er lo cl ec1'd e th e repr ·esentation of the enrolled police personnel and Class-IV employees to retire prematurely, c thc fO ll owm~ · -, Representation Committee is constituted:-
For Class-IV to Inspectors Chairman - CP/Delhi Member Spl. CP / Administration Member Spl. CP / Crime V. CRITERIA The criteria which shall be kept in mind for consideration for the review is as under:-
l. Doubtful Integrity
a) If an officer is involved in corrupt .practices/ activities, i.e. complaint(s)/ allegations of corrupt activities have been substantiated in the departmental enquiry and their names entered in the D.I. List and proceedings taken up for major penalty. .
b) A. case or cnses of disproportionate assets/ case under POC Act has/have bccn registered ad charges have been framed in thc Ld. Court.
. 2. Moral Turpitude
a) Cases of ·assault on women, molestation, rape, POCSO Act and grave misconduct ·causing damage to the image/ reputation of the department have been registered and charges have been framed in the Ld. Court. ·
b) 'If an officer has been involved and charges have bccn framed by the trial court in a cnrrtmal case, causing damage to the image/reputation of the·department·
3. Habitual_Absentee .
A police personnel who is a habitual absentee, which renders him liable for punishment and. makes him unfit to entrust with the responsibility of duty.
This Anna; ure is the +
True Co,_;/ of Original Documen
6
Sacr~uhan
Advocate
4. Alcoholism/Drug Addiction
26
A'u:-,,
pohce personnel "h 0 • . ·
a : ho 'urs and h \,b" continues consuming alcohol/ drugs duriag0
drugs, whi 1abitually remains · under influence of liquor or
toe t' \, _IC~ renders him liable for punishment and makes him unfit . n.rust with the responsibility of duty.
5. Indiscipline A police personnel having multiple and adverse entries in service record about insubordination, indifferent attitude towards duty, msmcenty, inefficiency, ineffectiveness and behavior amounting to be unbecoming of a police officer.
6. Ineffectiveness Ineffectiveness of the individual where great loss of property and person along with defamation· to the department is caused.
• No employee should be retired on ineffectiveness if his service during the preceding five years where he has been promoted to a higher post during that five years· period, his service in the higher post, has been found satisfactory.
• No employee should ordinarily be retired on ground of ineffectiveness, if in any event, he would· be retiring_on superannuation within. a. period of one year from the date of consideration of his case.
VI APEX COURT GUIDELINES :
The above criteria, however, is not exhaustive, and guidelines can also be duly inferred from the 3 judgements quoted in the introduction para of the Standing Order. · · VII. MAINTENANCE OF RECORD . I) A Register should be prepare~ in-~ach district/unit in respect of each rank showing the name, constabulary No., date of birth, date of enlistment, date of completion of 30 years service, date of attaining 55 years of age and remarks column. The names of all those falling in this category should be 'brought on this Register and further names cntered as contingency arises. This will be a continuous process.
II) This Register should be scrutinized and initiated by the head of office in each unit in the first week of every month to bring it up-to~datc.
. A-cure is the ,+
This 7' Original Documen
True Co yo · 7
sachin c~an
Advocate
..... New cases should be considered and the decision arrived at should be · • entered in the register. · Ill) The cases of Inspectors along with brief citation and recommendation of the Screening Committee be forwarded to PHQ for takmg final decision. .
IV) A list of police personnel so retired shall be sent by District/Unit DCsP fo DCP /Vigilance on quarterly basts by 1 0th of April, July, Oct & Jan. respectively. · · · VIII. SUPERSESSIOi CLAUSE .
. This supersedes S.O. No. A-25 (Previously S.O. No. 184/2009) issued vide No. 1901-2150/Recoi-d Branch/PHQ, dated 29.1.2009.
. . -~ -.
@l9
_(AMlJLYA PATNAII{).
· COMMISSIONER OF· POLICE:
o.. No. I57sro, pas«a \8/1
NEW DELHI:
No.lo L-22 SO/Record Branch(Ac- )/PHg, d«tea Demi, ae \ _yo1o. Copy Toi-warded for informatior~ and C•'C•.;ssnry action to the:-
1. . All Special Commissioners_ of Police, Delhi. . .
2: .A li·Jo,1nt Commissioners of Police and Additional Commissioners of Police, Delhi. . . .
3. Principal/PTC, Jharocla Kalan, Delhi
4. All Deputy Commis~ioners of Police of Districts/Units.
5. Deputy Commissioner o_f Police (General Administration-PHQ), PRO, IT Centre and FRRO, Delhi. - - ·
6. SO to Commissioner of Police and LA to Com~i.s sioner··of Police, Delhi ..
7. AII ACSP of Sub-Divisions and all SHOs in Delhi.
This Anrexure is the Tru~ C0.JY of Original D~ment Sachin Chauhan 8 Advocate 4% c@) OR D ER +..ss This is the final order in departmental enquiry initiated against· Const Rakam Singh, No. 606/DAP (PIS No. 28861417) (here-in-after called the defaulter) under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules-1980, vide thi s office order No. 10149-10179/HAP/P -IV1" Bn. DAP dated 19.7.2013, on the allegations that one Sh. Kamal Singh r/o Gautambudh Nagar, UP made a complaint that the marriage of hisdaughter Kavita was solemnized with Mehak Singh s/o Bhopal Singh on 26.01.2005. After marriage his daughter used to come to his house and everytime she complained ,if harassment by her in-laws including her Jeth (Ct. Rakam. Singh, No.2667/PCR) on the pretext of dowry. They threatened her that if she would not bring fridge and washing machine next time she would be sent back. to her parents house and also would be killed. On 11.06.2006, Sh. Kamal Singh received a telephonic message by his relative Darshan that his daughter Kavita is seriously ill and asked him to reach there at the very earliest 11r•Sh. Kamal Singh reached Kavita's in-laws place along with his. wife, relatives and neighbours and on reaching there they found that Kavita had been killed by her in-laws. Subsequently, a case FIR No.264/06 u/s 304-B/498-A IPC and ¾ Dowry Act, PS Murad Nagar, Distt. Ghaziabad, UP was registered against Ct Rakam Singh, No.2667/DAP and his family. Ct. Rakam Singh, No.2667/PCR was arrested and charge sheeted in this case along with his family members.
For the above lapse, he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 10.10.2006 vide order No.2366-2400/HAP/P-IV/PCR dated 15.02.2007. Later on, he was re-instated from suspension vide order No.2095-2135/HAP/P-III/1 Bn. OAP dated
- 28.02.2013- --
The DE was entrusted to lnspr. Narender Pal, No.D/I/101,E.O. of this Bn., for conducting the same on day-to-day basis. He accordingly completed the sare and submitted his findings concluding therein that the charges leveled against Const Rakam Singh, No. 606/DAP is proved.
+« Agreeing with the findings of Enquiry Officer, a copy of the finding was sent for serving upon delinquent Constable vide this office U. 0. No.12562/HAPiP,:l/15.1_ Bn. DAP dated 12.8.2014 for submission of his written submission/representatiqn against the finding of the Enquiry Officer of DE, if any. He submitted his written representation against the findings of Enquiry Officer on 28.8.2014 mentioning various pleas. .. ..
For the sake of natural justice he was also heard in O.R. on 9.9.2014. He pleaded that· he was residing separately & has been falsely implicated in this case: & that is why he has already challenged his conviction order which is still· under consideration. He further requested that in view of it, final decision of DE may be kept abeyance at least till the outcome of appeal.
. .
I have perused the findings of EO, representation of delinquent Constable & other record available on DE file. It is a case where the delinquent constable involved TI, ; s . , . 2 is the True Coy oi ..),1ginal 1 cum,~nt ..
Sachin Chauhan, ±
Advocate
' ,/
° 99
himself in case FIR No.264/06 u/s 304-B/498-A IPC & 3/4 Dowry Act, PS Murad Na§ik, Distt Ghaziabad; UP which is one of the serious case~- The Hon'ble court of ASJ, Ghaziabad vide its judgement dated 04.09.2008 has imposed the sentence of life imprisonment upon delinquent Constable and his family members keeping in view the gravity of offence As far as the question of our administrative enqviry PW-2 Sh. Kamal Singh father of deceased Kavita has categorically deposed that the: delinquent Constable [Brother-in-law (JETH) of deceased Kavita] and other family members were harassing her daughter for demand of dowry and ultimately took her life. On the basis of such material deposition tendered by complainant it cannot be believed that the delinquent Constable was not involved in such misdeed particularly when the Hon'ble court has convicted him and his family members after long trial. His plea that DE may be kept in abeyance till the final outcome of criminal appeal cannot be accepted in view of existing instructions. By committing such kind of condemnable act the delinquent Constable has not only ruined one family but also tarnished the image of department Under these circumstances, he at least deserves major punishment which will work as deterrence and prove as instrument to minimize such kind of misdeed from the society to some extent, I believe.
Accordingly in consonance with the findings of EO & other factors of case, I, Sang Norbu Mosobi, Deputy Commissioner of Police/1st Bn. DAP, Delhi award punishment forfeiture of two year's approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in his pay to Const Rakam Singh, No. 606/DAP with immediate effect The suspension period from 10.10.2006 to 27.2.2013 is decided as 'period not spent oh duty' for all intents and purposes. · ·- · ; · .'. . . & t Let a copy of this order be given to Const Rakam Singh; No._ ·506/D,AP s -fr Ht o f h et l.
[lo o I!t r filo non no3l a1 air oc rd !!!} d l l Ski iJ adi! ·+{+lie Cl<i or,,r al!# {} +},-
{f
-Ji ,a._1 r , --;- -£
F GdiilO'la! O f ? iliSi@; f Gl
Police/Armed Police, Delhi within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order on a
non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.00.75 paise by enclosing a copy of this order,· ifhE/ so desires.' ' (SAN3AOI!BU MOSOBI).
IPS - .
DY. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE.
1ST BN. OAP: DELHI ;·_
SIP/OB
CG NO.
No 1q -l4430HAPP-u1 Bn DAP, dated, Delhi, the /2014 ', •
• i
Copy forwarded for information arid necessary action to the:-
I. Special Commissioners of Poiicelamn., Armed Police & Vigilance, t)efr{:· 2 Additional Commissioners of Police/AP & Vigilance, Delhi. .
3. DCsPIHQ, Estt., Legal Cell, Vigilance & DE Cell, Delhi. .: ".,
4. Addi. DCP/IT/PHO, Delhi.
. 5. ACsPIP & CB/PHO, Delhi.
This Annure is the . .
True Copy of Original ~ment
Sachin Chauhan
Advocate
:,,... '·'
6. A ACsPI1 Bn. DAP, Demi 0
7. Inspr.'P' Branch/PHQ, Delhi. .
8. RI/1 Bn OAP, Delhi with one spare copy for delivering the same to Const.
Rakam Singh, No. 606/DAP against his proper receipt (signature with date), which may return to this office for record. · .. · t
9. Accountant11 s Bn. OAP with one spare copy for necessary action.
10. All Head Assistants including Record Branch/1s t Bn. OAP, Delhi. .. I I. HACRISIP/1" Bn. DAP, Delhi. .. ea
12. SIP/FMC/1st Bn. DAP, Delhi along with DE files (E. O. files) i.e. one main DE file containing 01 to 91 pages(61 to 91 in dupiicate) + 9 order sh.eet + index = 1 to 19 misc. paper + 1 to 41 exhibits for placing the same with the Fauzi Missal of Const. Rakam Singh, No. 606/DAP for record. · · ·:,::·
13. I/C CA/Vigilance, Delhi. . ,,,
14. I/Cs P. Misc. & P Cell/DE Cell, Delhi.
..· ·..
15. SO/PA to DCP/1st Bn. OAP, Delhi.
t I 6. I/C Intra DP/PIS Cell/1s Bn. OAP, Delhi for making necessary entry in all relevant modules. . . :.
17. P-III & V/Punishment Branch/1° Bn. OAP for updating/completion of record.
This Anneure is the {
True Coy of OrigH~ocu_m_en
Sachin Chauhan
Advocate !+.
: .. ·
:.'
.,
I
I
IN THE COURT OE ~
...... T_·
• ....... p_ _.._
.C?>_,_(J.t J) _
Suit/ Appeal No. JURISDICTION of 200
In re:- 0 ,_ fvnA
______,K: ...,_g
......
)SJ_g m
'""·.......__~
- -n- - - Piff / Apptt./Petitioner/ Complainant VER$U$, 0
- C~ ' pt ¥~Cit A?:::oetdt./ Respt. /Accused KNOW ALL to whom these present shall come that I/ We 0. p-@} i C,c:f 1 appla= . "'ihe above named SJ.XGH I r'II C H•A RU/ u11 tf:ril 11 • ~ _ by apPoint ,do he""-
11P
'
~. . · Advoc t,
D-fl82/2000 . _..
c-67,Lower Ground i::Jo ' I
1 ajpat Nagar, Part l.
. New Oelhi-110 024
(herioln afilur calle~. lb~ •~IW•)lo be my/04.Jr Advocaia In tho abovtHlotod case aulho<iso him ;.
l(o acl. appear and pleadin the above-notad case In lhlt court or In Ally o&hw Coutc In which the same may t>_e ltl_ed or l,111..aid and alao In lhe appellate court Including High Coui1subjec110 payment d1,fees separately for each <:qJf1l by;riw✓,us. _ ..
. To Jslgn:m,t"vedty 8':1d,pteant plo~dil!gs, appeala croaa-<>Qjoctioos o, petitions for executions review, r~·. . _-,.,._ .•• --~-- -girls or ol~r petitions 0( alfidavits:..-r~'-~P_l:i,~may be i~,::::r' ·i 1t ~o~ 0 ~: ~ f of tho said cas«J In all: ..••. -·-·•~\;-;:-c~ T] qrooencoure° it, ac/or den y tto doc 'lj, e or iubmlt 19 wbllraf;, ."ygyunii,jf. .».
,.DLCT2415421A19~;.;~ . ,1 oilier a~..,,,...,,..-m~•.-..-..--:;;.~c ....,._ ~-... \iv · ') to be dooQ for.tho· p~ Prosoeuw,-aldcaso.
aulhori~y To ,:lMW.8C. O!' Jr:~oJ _,_ 0 ~~ctilion<,r aqthori~ 0 ° .whano,:".'.!J ~~ may• o , · A Ncro, Oeut, c,g:... SQ ,to ,awY Wld ·~ fi ""Into.
woo! "llla.iz@E ge l±ii±ii
O O
flW)iI),jpp/ li sir ski,
-,,v1v ., • • • • . . o . fll/llllllJ. finot:to.hold the a,
for lhe re:iult of tho said ca:.o.; .•.,. o : ffet cosls whenever.
Advocate whi ch he. shallr.ecoive Md ftlta11.1 ,Jf •himself. ,
·A,o_d I/We unde~iQned d,o _hereby ~gr,tu, that in lho evenl ot 'he'whol-. or parot tne 1t11.1 agrHd b.y ,ne/us lo be paid,to lho ecivocate-te,mairiing unpaid ho llhall be entitled ,., withdcaw from tho prosecuticn ol the said case until the amno is paid up. Thu fH &elUe:I ii. only fo, lho above ca:.o and at>Qye Court I/We her.~y agtoe lhal Qnce lhe'f~_o is,paid I/We wdl not bo eotiUed for the rofuod ol lhe same in any case whatsoe~r and i: tt,le cas,e prolqqgs t01 more than '3 years lhe Ofiginal tee shall be paid aga•n by me/us; ~ :.. · ~ _- w- IN WITNESS WHERE OF IM'e do here.untoset·my/our hMd to hu.ve (K'.;~ ~nd9"'10od ~y me/us on "''' J.
resents the contents of
day /A -.,i-,.ss
==#ham...
Advocate 1/ Cllenl
i#l"
f
Cl/en, , ;;. '. •
t ;
?G
~ DIRECi OR GENERAL OF POSTS.
av ro psst
(:,C-)-J 7Jk, (\./' J)
----------------<liT
~~.~~-THE SUM OF RUPEES FIFTY ONLY
ran feaz ~COMMISSION~ 5 RUPEES !}
POSTAGE STAMPS m 3llf.TT 1Tll' Jffi I
Qnf ~
SENDER MAY FfLL.fN HIS NAME AND ADDRESS MERE.
fffisr ~ l{:J
Jfl'
2co Gaeta,
/J
----__,,/____
/
1l'TR ll l~
~MA f , t ~if~ 1ii'f I - - - - ·- - - - - ~--
<nm- ,ult ir;f.l $'~·a; ai1mi W 24itft,\ Jffi ~ ~ 'ii !J'lill'T <ITtl ilif.l lt ~ tfrr 3ifmi ~ '\¼ 36 ~I t?'-l. Valldlty.•2.4 montti, froln Z> tR,:!JTRl'lll'I last day,ottht month.otlssua-and ~6 months from the last dat. of lho month of issue on payment of second commission.
the t;lt;l){n~ OONQ.l'WRJTEBELOWTHISLINE 1~\ ·•~ · 1/ 89G 360197 •