Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ishwar Singh (Retired Asi) vs Shri K.K. Paul, Commissioner Of Police, ... on 8 May, 2006
ORDER
V.K. Majotra, Vice-Chairman (A)
1. OA No.52/2006 seeking direction to respondents to pay washing allowance, conveyance allowance, special pay/salary of one month as the period of suspension had been treated as spent on duty, was disposed of by order dated 10.1.2006 with the following directions:
4. Accordingly, OA is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to treat the present OA as a representation made by the applicant to the respondents for redressal of his grievances and the respondents are directed to consider this representation and decide it within two months from the date on which the copy of the aforesaid representation and the copy of the order of the Tribunal is received by them. Counsel for applicant has undertaken to serve a copy of the aforesaid representation and copy of this order of the Tribunal on the respondents within one week. OA stands disposed of in above terms.
5. It will be open to the applicant to approach this Tribunal in accordance with law in case her grievances survive after the representation is decided.
2. Through the present MA respondents have sought extension of time by two months from 10.4.2006 for implementation of Tribunals directions. It is stated that several departments such as accounts branch, character roll branch and legal cell are concerned with the matter and that the time stipulated for disposal of the representation is not enough for consultation with all these departments and taking decision thereafter.
3. Respondents in the OA have also filed an additional affidavit in pursuance of Tribunals orders dated 19.4.2006 whereby respondents were directed to explain the reasons for not implementing the order and approaching the Tribunal for extension of time for implementation of Tribunals orders. Respondents in the OA have stated that Tribunals orders were received by respondent No.2, i.e., Commissioner of Police on 16.1.2006. The orders were to be implemented by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch as the applicant in the OA was posted in the Special Branch. As such, Tribunals orders were sent to the Special Branch which received them on 3.2.2006. Thereafter, accounts section and the legal cell including DCP, Special Branch were consulted which took time. Financial advice had also to be taken. It is stated that this MA has been delayed only by seven days for which condonation has been sought stating that there has not been any wilful delay in deciding the representation of applicant.
4. We are satisfied with the explanation rendered by respondents for the delay. MA-681/2006, therefore, is allowed extending the time for implementing the Tribunals directions by 10.6.2006.
C.P. NO.116/20065. This contempt petition has been filed on behalf of applicant alleging that respondents have willfully and deliberately not complied with the orders of the Tribunal dated 10.1.2006. As we have granted extension of time for implementing the Tribunals directions up to 10.6.2006, the contempt petition is disposed of, giving liberty to applicant for resorting to such action at the appropriate time, if necessary.
M.A. NO.800/20066. Applicant has filed this application under Section 340 CrPC stating that the counsel for respondents on instructions of Mr. R.K. Sharma (DCP, Special Branch) made a false and incorrect statement given in evidence before this Tribunal on 19.4.2006 that no cheque was prepared and the representation of applicant was yet to be decided by respondents. It is averred that cheque No.142770 drawn on State Bank of India dated 19.2.2006 amounting to Rs. 7420/- was issued in the name of applicant. Another false statement given in evidence pertains to the fact that representation of applicant is yet to be decided by respondents. It is contended that representation of applicant was already rejected by respondents. It is stated that this can be ascertained from the counter reply filed by respondents in OA No.2645/2005 which has been filed as Annexure MA/3 colly. In the said counter reply, in paragraph 4.12 in reply to paragraph 4.12 of that OA, it was stated as follows:
4.12 As regards para 4.12 of the O.A. it is submitted that an amount of Rs. 32,142/- for various pay & allowances was paid vide bill No.603 cash on 27.07.2005 to the applicant for the suspension period from 29.11.1998 to 17.09.1992. The compensatory pay for the period of his dismissal/suspension period could not be paid to the individual as per order of Govt. of India vide order No. F.14021/1/78-UTP dated 10.12.1979 and letter No. F.3/23/91-Home(Police)/Estt., Delhi Administration, Delhi, dated 15.10.1991.
Thus, the learned counsel of applicant contended that respondents have submitted false affidavits and should be proceeded with under Section 340 CrPC. The learned counsel relied on Sube Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. In that case it was held that a false statement made on oath by the deponent before the Honble Supreme Court with an intent to subvert the process of law would amount to contempt of court, and suo motu notice was issued to show cause why action should not be taken against him for contempt.
7. We have gone through the directions contained in Tribunals order dated 10.1.2006 in OA No.52/2006. Respondents were directed to treat the OA as a representation to respondents and take a decision thereon. This representation has yet to be decided by respondents. There was no direction to respondents to pay pay and allowances for the suspension period or the compensatory pay. Respondents were directed merely to decide applicants representation. In this view of the matter, respondents statement to have or not to have made payment has not in any manner subverted the process of law, as respondents have yet to take a decision on applicants representation and Tribunal had not made directions beyond that. Yet, the conduct of respondents in making different statements on affidavits is deprecated. It is made clear that if these contradictory statements made by respondents had affected our decision in any manner, serious consequences would have followed, therefore, respondents are warned to be careful in future for not making casual and contradictory statements on affidavits.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this MA is disposed of with the above observations only.