Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Raj Kumar vs Comm. Of Police on 31 October, 2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 2939/2015
This the 31st day of October, 2019
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Ms. Aradhana Johri, Member (A)
Sh. Raj Kumar (Aged 49 yrs.)
S/o Sh. Puran Singh
R/o Village & PO Khori
P.S. Khori, Tehsil & Distt. Rewari,
Haryana.
(Constable Delhi Police)
(No. 3467/SE, PIS No. 28871707)
South East District, New Delhi.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Dr. Kanwal Sapra)
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police,
Police Headquarters, MSO Building
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
2. The Joint Commissioner of Police,
South Eastern Range,
Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
3. Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police
South East District,
Sarita Vihar, New Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. G.D. Chawla for Ms. Harvinder Oberoi)
2 OA No.2939/2015
ORDER (Oral)
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member(J):
Heard the parties.
2. The applicant is working as a Constable with the respondents and in the present OA, he has challenged the order dated 17.10.2013 (Annexure-A) passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of forfeiture of three years of approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in his pay and deciding the absence period as 'Dies-Non' and also the order dated 22.01.2015 (Annexure-B) passed by the Appellate Authority vide which the applicant's appeal against the Disciplinary Authority order dated 17.10.2013 has been rejected.
3. The undisputed facts in the present OA are noted as under:-
(a) The order dated 04.10.2012 (Annexure-A/1) was passed by the Disciplinary Authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant for alleged unauthorised absence for the period noted there in the order.3 OA No.2939/2015
(b) A Summary of Alligation dated 22.11.2012 (Annexure-
A/3) was served upon the applicant wherein it was alleged that despite of service of Absentee Notice, the applicant did not report for duty and therefore, he has violated the provisions of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and SO No.-111 of Delhi Police which amounts to grave misconduct and indiscipline which rendered him liable to be dealt with departmentally under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment of Appeal) Rules, 1980.
(c) A charge dated 19.06.2013 (Annexure-A/4) was framed by the Inspector Investigation, wherein it has been alleged as under:-
"xxx xxx xxx Despite service of absentee notices you did not report for duty till date.
S.No. Absentee notice No. and date
1. 5010/SIP/SED dated 01.03.2012
2. 10273/SIP/SED dated 01.05.2012 (Received by you on 09.05.2012)
3. 12958/SIP/SED dated 30.05.2012 (Received by you on 23.06.2012) Despite service of absentee notices, you did not report for duty till 03.5.2013. You have resumed your duty after absenting yourself wilfully, unauthorised for a period of 1 year 10 months 28 days 5 hrs and 25 minutes.
On perusal of your previous absentee record, it reveals that you had also absented yourself on 11 different occasions which have already been decided by the competent authority as Casual Leave Earned Leave, 4 OA No.2939/2015 Warning, Not Spent on Duty, Commuted Leave, L.K.D. and L.W.P. but you did not mend your ways even after providing so many opportunities to you in the past. It shows that you are an incorrigible type of person and a habitual absentee.
The above act on the part of you constable Raj Kumar No. 3467/SE clearly shows that you have a violated the provisions of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and SO No.-111 of Delhi Police, amounts to grave misconduct and indiscipline which renders you liable to be dealt with departmentally under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules-1980."
(d) The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report dated 21.08.2013 (Annexure-A/6), wherein he has concluded as under:-
"I have gone through the statements of PWs and defence statement submitted by the delinquent Ct Raj Kumar No 3467/SE. I have also gone through the statements given by two DWs. I have seen the medical papers of the delinquent, which were duly verified by the DW1 Dr Sultan Singh. In view of the above, I find that the delinquent Ct Raj Kumar No 3467/SE absented himself from his duty without informing to his Headquarters, because he was suffering from acute mental illness and he was not in position of performing his duties. Hence, the allegations of absenting himself wilfully did not prove."
(e) On receipt of the aforesaid enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned order dated 17.10.2013 (Annexure-A), wherein it has recorded that the applicant agreed tentatively with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and therefore, the enquiry report was served upon the applicant. The Disciplinary Authority has also noted in para six thereof that the Enquiry Officer concluded in his report that the allegations of absenting 5 OA No.2939/2015 himself wilfully stands proved against Constable Raj Kumar, No. 3467/SE without any shadow of doubt.
4. The applicant submitted the Statutory Appeal (Annexure-A/7) on 11.01.2014 and on receipt of such appeal, the Appellate Authority passed the impugned order dated 22.01.2015 (Annexure-B) and the Appellate Authority has recorded in its order dated 22.01.2015 as under:-
"xxx xxx xxx He was, therefore, dealt with departmentally vide Order No. 6407-21/HAP/SED (P-I) dated 04.10.2012. The Enquiry Officer Inspr. Mali Ram Meena of PS Sarita Vihar completed the D.E. and submitted his findings, concluding therein that the allegations of absenting willfully stands proved against the appellant without any shadow of doubt.
xxx xxx xxx"
On perusal of the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, it is evident that they are of the view that the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report proving the allegation of absenting by the applicant wilfully whereas the Enquiry Report dated 21.08.2013 is contrary as recorded above.
5. In view of above, it is evident that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have not applied their mind while passing the impugned orders. 6 OA No.2939/2015 Moreover, if the Disciplinary Authority has any reason to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, he has not chosen to issue any disagreement note.
6. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority with a liberty to pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order, keeping in view the relevant records, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case, the applicant feels aggrieved of such order, he shall have liberty to appeal before the Appellate Authority.
7. In the above terms, OA stands disposed of.
8. No order as to costs.
(Aradhana Johri) (R.N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /akshaya/