Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Insp. Om Prakash Singh vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 19 April, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.1424/2011 M.A.No.1059/2011 Tuesday, this the 19th day of April 2011 Honble Shri M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Shri Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) Insp. Om Prakash Singh Inspr. No.D-1/874 PIS No.16820088 s/o late Shri Tej Bahadur Singh r/o DA-38A, DDA Flats Hari Nagar, N Delhi-64 Presently posted at DHC/Security Group B, aged 53 years ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Sourabh Ahuja) Versus 1. Union of India through its Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs North Block, New Delhi 2. Commissioner of Police Police Head Quarters IP Estate, MSO Building New Delhi 3. Joint Commissioner of Police New Delhi Range Through Commissioner of Police PHQ, IP Estate MSO Building, New Delhi 4. Deputy Commissioner of Police East District Through Commissioner of Police PHQ, IP Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi ..Respondents O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri M.L. Chauhan:
The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 25.5.2007 whereby penalty of censure was inflicted upon him and the order dated 25.4.2008 whereby the appeal of the applicant was rejected. The applicant has also filed a miscellaneous application, being MA-1059/2011 along with this OA seeking condonation of delay. The reason for filing the OA at this belated stage is that he was not aware about the decision of the appeal and after waiting for quite sometime when no result was forthcoming the applicant moved an application under Right to Information Act to know the status of the appeal. The applicant was shocked to hear/learn on 15.12.2010 that his appeal has already been rejected vide order dated 25.4.2008. According to the applicant, he was not aware about the rejection of his appeal, nor was the copy of the order dated 25.4.2008 served upon him and the applicant received the said order on 23.12.2010. It is on this ground the applicant prayed for condonation of delay in filing the OA.
2. We have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and are of the view that the applicant has not made out any case for condonation of delay in filing the OA.
3. From the material placed on record and more particularly the application dated 12.10.2010 for supply of documents under RTI, it is clear that the applicant appeared before the appellate authority in the pending appeal and this fact is also recorded by the appellate authority in its order dated 25.4.2008 (Annexure A-3) whereby in the last paragraph the appellate authority has recorded that he has also heard the appellant in person and he has nothing new to add to what he has already submitted in writing. Thus, the fact remains that the applicant has appeared before the appellate authority prior to passing the impugned order dated 25.4.2008.
4. From the material placed on record, it is evident that the applicant did not take any steps in order to ascertain the status of his appeal. It is also evident from perusal of letter dated 12.10.2010 (page 28 of the paper book) that for the first time the applicant sought information under RTI regarding status of his appeal after a lapse of two and a half years. Thus, the contention of the applicant that he was waiting for the decision of the appellate authority cannot be accepted.
5. It is also evident from the perusal of material placed on record that the file where the case of the applicant regarding punishment was dealt with is not traceable. Further, the appellate authority has directed to convey the order regarding rejection of the appeal to disciplinary authority, i.e., DCP/Central District against proper receipt. It appears that the aforesaid file, which was not traceable, could have thrown some light regarding the service of appellate authoritys order upon the applicant against proper receipt. The case set up by the applicant that the order was not served upon him appears to be concocted and does not inspire the confidence of this Tribunal.
6. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the applicant was heard in person by the appellate authority before passing the order dated 25.4.2008 and the explanation given by the applicant that he kept on waiting for the decision on his appeal by the appellate authority for a period of two and a half years cannot be accepted. Even otherwise also, the applicant has not made out any case in terms of Section 21 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Section 20 (2) (b) of the Act mandates that in case the appeal or representation filed by a person is not decided by the appellate authority or the competent authority from the date of presentation of such an appeal/representation, the same shall be deemed to have been rejected after a lapse of 6 months. The applicant has placed on record the copy of the appeal made by him as Annexure A-6, which does not bear any date. In any case, the appeal could have been filed by the applicant in the middle of July 2007, as statutory period for filing the appeal is 45 days. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 20 (2) (b) of the Act, 1985, the appeal filed by the applicant would be deemed to have been decided in March 2008 and in that eventuality, the applicant could have filed the OA after a period of one year thereafter, i.e., upto March 2009. Admittedly, the present OA is filed by the applicant on 8.4.2011. The applicant has not explained the circumstances why he has not taken any steps for filing the OA in terms of the period prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The scope of sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 21 of the Act was discussed by the Apex court in the case of State of Karnataka & others v. S.M. Kotrayya & others, 1996 SCC (L&S) 1488 wherein it has been held that explanation has to be given for the period beyond Section 21 (1) & (2) of the Act as to why a person could not avail of the remedy of redressal of grievance before the expiry of the period prescribed under sub-section (1) & (2). At this stage, it will be useful to quote the relevant portion of the said judgment, which thus reads:-
9. Thus considered, we hold that it is not necessary that the respondents should give an explanation for the delay which occasioned for the period mentioned in Ss. (1) or (2) of Section 21, but they should give explanation for the delay which occasioned after the expiry of the aforesaid respective period applicable to the appropriate case and the tribunal should be required to satisfy itself whether the explanation offered was proper explanation. In this case, the explanation offered was that they came to know of the relief granted by the tribunal in August 1989 and that they filed the petition immediately thereafter. That is not a proper explanation at all. What was required of them to explain under sub-sections (1) and (2) was as to why they could not avail of the remedy of redressal of their grievances before the expiry of the period prescribed under Ss. (1 or (2. That was not the explanation given. Therefore, the tribunal is wholly unjustified in condoning the delay.
7. As already stated above, the applicant has not given any explanation as to why he has approached this Tribunal belatedly as prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
8. Accordingly, the MA seeking condonation of delay is rejected. Since we have not condoned the delay in filing the OA, the OA stands dismissed in limine.
( Shailendra Pandey ) ( M. L. Chauhan ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/