Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Constable (Driver) Pawan Singh vs Commissioner Of Police on 6 December, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 3099/2011 New Delhi this the 6th day of December, 2013 Honble Mr. V.Ajay Kumar, Member (J) Honble Mr. P.K.Basu, Member (A) Constable (Driver) Pawan Singh S/o Shri Kartar Singh R/o Village and Post Office Manlana P.S. Sadar, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana Applicant (Through Shri Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate) Versus 1. Commissioner of Police, Police Head Quarters, ITO, New Delhi 2. Addl. Commissioner of Police, PCR and Communication, Police Head Quarters ITO, Delhi 3. Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Police Control Room Police Head Quarters ITO, Delhi Respondents (Through Mrs. Pratima Gupta, Advocate) ORDER
Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A) A departmental inquiry was initiated against the applicant vide office order dated 14.09.2001 alleging therein that while posted in security unit, he absented himself from duty unauthorizedly, without information on three different occasions viz. 5.05.1999 to 25.05.1999 (21 days but wrongly indicated as 24 days), 22.06.1999 to 1.10.1999 (101 days) and 5.10.1999 to 19.04.2001 (563 days). The respondents allege that in case of absence of 21 days and 101 days, the applicant neither sent any information regarding illness nor took permission from the competent authority to avail rest at home and absented himself unauthorizedly. In case of absence of 563 days, the notices were sent at his residence through registered A/D as also through SSP, Sonipat. The postal authorities returned the letters with the report addressee not met at home. Five notices between April, 2000 and December, 2000 sent through S.P., Sonipat were received either by him or his relatives but he neither resumed his duty nor sought any permission for producing any medical certificates in respect of his illness nor sent any information to his office. The applicant had absented himself on 16 occasions earlier also for which he was awarded major/ minor punishments but the applicant did not mend his ways. The departmental proceedings under question commenced and the summary of allegations, list of witnesses together with gist of evidence was sent at the permanent address of the applicant by special messenger and served upon the applicant on 9.01.2002. The applicant failed to participate in the departmental proceedings and the inquiry officer was forced to conduct the inquiry ex parte. A copy of the inquiry officers report was supplied to the applicant vide letter dated 19.03.2002 for making his representation, if any, but he did not submit his representation. He was served with reminders to no avail and did not turn up to cooperate in the departmental proceedings despite giving several dates. Finally the disciplinary authority passed order dated 3.12.2002 awarding punishment of dismissal from service. The applicant received copy of the punishment order on 20.01.2003 and submitted appeal against the same on 13.08.2010 after a period of more than seven-and-a-half years. This was rejected by the appellate authority being time barred vide order dated 15.02.2011. The applicant filed another representation dated 1.06.2011 which was also considered and rejected by the respondents on the ground that Rule 23 (2) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 provides that there shall be only one appeal from the original order and the order of the appellate authority shall be final. The applicant was informed accordingly vide order dated 5.07.2011. He filed OA 2056/2011 before this Tribunal but subsequently withdrew it and the Tribunal dismissed the same as withdrawn on 14.07.2011.
2. This OA has been filed by the applicant praying to quash order dated 5.07.2011 passed by the respondents on his representation dated 1.06.2011, order dated 15.02.2011 passed by the appellate authority and the original penalty order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 3.12.2002, seeking direction to respondents to reinstate him with all consequential benefits and salary for the period 1998 onwards till the date of dismissal i.e. 3.12.2002.
3. Heard both the parties.
4. The case of the applicant is that he was unwell from 5.05.1999 to 25.05.1999 (21 days) and had to be on medical rest. The applicant has produced copy of medical certificate issued by Medical Incharge M.C.A.V. Dispensary, Bankner, Delhi-40 in this regard. Similarly, he has claimed that between the period 22.06.1999 to 1.10.1999 (101 days), he was suffering from jaundice and was undertaking treatment at CGHS Kingsway Camp, Delhi. After that on 7.09.2000, the applicant was operated at Shiva Hospital, Sonipat after having met with a serious accident and was advised medical rest from 26.07.2000 to 18.04.2001. Copy of Shiva Hospital certificate showing his admission and advice for medical rest for the period 26.07.2000 to 18.04.2001 is annexed at Annexure A-7. The applicant, therefore, claims that he could not appear before the disciplinary authority because of his medical condition but the disciplinary authority ignored this fact while concluding the departmental proceedings ex parte and passed the order of dismissal. The learned counsel for the applicant stated that the medical certificates of the petitioner should have been duly considered by the respondents.
5. The applicant claims that in his appeal before the Additional Commissioner of Police (copy placed at Annexure A-17 as undated), he had mentioned his medical condition but the appellate authority had not considered his prayer. On our asking him to produce any documents which would show that he had informed the inquiry officer of his medical condition, the applicant failed to do so. He only pointed to undated letter (Annexure A-8) in which he mentions about rest from 11.09.2000 to 9.12.2000 and that medical certificates are enclosed, however, no medical certificate is enclosed and, as stated, this is undated and cannot be accepted as evidence. Moreover, even if it is true, this communication is addressed to the Police Commissioner and not to the disciplinary authority.
6. The respondents in reply have stated that the applicant had absented himself on three occasions and on the third occasion, for 563 days. The respondents pointed to the fact that it is not possible that the applicant was in the hospital for 563 days and did not get an opportunity to inform the respondents despite the departments best efforts through Registered Post and Special Messengers to deliver him papers. The other fact pointed out by the respondents was that the applicant filed his appeal after seven-and-a-half years on 13.08.2010 whereas the disciplinary authoritys order was dated 3.12.2002. Here again his claim that he could not file it earlier due to mental disorder was not substantiated by any medical papers and hence being barred by time, his appeal was rejected.
7. From the facts of the case, it appears clearly that the applicant has absented himself from duty for very long periods without any intimation to the department. There was not a piece of paper which could be produced by the applicant showing that he had made any attempt to inform the department why he was not able to attend duties because of his medical condition, supported by medical certificates. Even when the departmental inquiry started, he did not inform the inquiry officer about his medical condition. Later he did not inform the disciplinary authority about his so called medical condition. He simply chose to absent himself from the departmental inquiry till the final order was passed ex parte. Then he slept over the matter for seven-and-a-half years and filed an appeal which was rejected rightly by the appellate authority being time barred. His further representation dated 1.06.2011 was rejected stating that rules did not permit any further appeal beyond the appeal before the appellate authority. Clearly the applicant is a highly indisciplined personnel and being from the police service, this has to be viewed seriously. If a police personnel just vanishes without any intimation to his office and then tries to stall the disciplinary proceedings by not participating in it and not informing the department why he has not been able to participate, no doubt deserves a punishment which may be deterrent to others. The ground that is taken by the applicant now of his medical condition etc. clearly seems to be an afterthought, just as a ground for filing this OA.
8. In the result, we see no merit in the OA and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
( P.K.Basu ) ( V. Ajay Kumar) Member (A) Member (J) /dkm/