Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Samu Murmu vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 6 January, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No. 3647/2009 New Delhi, this the 6th day of January, 2010 HONBLE MR. L.K. JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A) HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) Samu Murmu (D-3832) Q.No.71, Police Colony, Shalimar Bagh (Near Kela Godown) New Delhi-110088. . Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. S.C.Soren) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through its Chief Secretary, Players Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Commissioner of Police Delhi, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. Joint Commissioner of Police Delhi, Headquarters, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. . Respondents O R D E R Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) :
The Applicant is aggrieved that he has been overlooked for promotion to the post of Inspector under the Respondents. The reasons for overlooking the Applicant for promotion have been communicated to the Applicant by communications dated 3.11.2008 and 26.12.2008, the relevant portions of which are reproduced below:
3. The DPCs held on 30.11.2007 and 16.9.2008 have considered your name for admission to Promotion List-F(Exe.) but you failed to achieve the bench mark adopted by the DPCs on both the occasions due to indifferent service record for the relevant past 10 years. As per provisions contained in clause (ii) of the DPC guidelines issued vide this Hdqrs. circular dated No.7931-8030/CB-I, dated 07.02.2005, the service record of the officer during preceding 10 years in that particular rank shall be taken into account with particular reference to the gravity and continuity of punishment till date. Punishment on counts of corruption and moral turpitude are to be viewed seriously.
2. The Applicant is a Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police. From 13.06.2001 to 3.01.2007, penalties of censure have been inflicted on him eight times. The learned counsel for the Applicant would contend that the censures have been communicated due to gross bias against the Applicant which could be seen from the fact that five censures have been communicated in one year between January and September 2004. He further contends that these are on very petty grounds and that on the basis of these censures, he cannot be superseded by his juniors. Advertence has been made to the circular dated 7.02.2005 of Delhi Police which provides for debarring such officers for promotion to next higher ranks who have been awarded censure on the charges of corruption, moral turpitude or gross dereliction of duty to protect government property. The order of a Full Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of Ashok Kumar Meena Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others in OA No.1295/2007 has also been adverted to in which the Principal Bench of this Tribunal had held that the effect of punishment of censure, which is not inflicted for the aforementioned misconducts, would last only for six months.
3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the Applicant and gone through the record placed before us.
4. The Applicant has not placed on record copies of various orders by which the censures were awarded to him.
5. After the decision of this Tribunal in Ashok Kumar Meena (supra) the matter was considered by the Honourable Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 17266/2006, Commissioner of Police Vs. Mr. Jawahar Singh decided on 17.02.2009. The Honourable Delhi High Court had held thus:
It is thus well established principal of law that while considering the employee for promotion, his whole record can be taken into consideration by the promotion committee and if the DPC takes into consideration the penalties imposed upon the employee and denies promotion, such a denial cannot be treated as illegal or unjustified. In the present case as noted above from 1996 to 2001, he was awarded penalty of censure four times. The reasons for which such penalty was awarded should also be mentioned as can be seen from the extract of the DPC quoted above. The Tribunal was thus wrong in solely relying upon the Clause-V of the OM dated 07.02.2005. This clause simply states that if an employee is given punishment of censure that shall debar him from promotion for six months and after the expiry of six months, he can be considered for promotion. That would mean that during the currency of said punishment which is for a period of six months, such an employee cannot even be considered for promotion. However, though after six months he can be considered for promotion but after going by the overall record and the nature of punishment imposed, the DPC comes to the conclusion that such an employee is not fit to be promoted, the court cannot interfere with this subjective satisfaction of the DPC which obviously is based on objective material.
6. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Honourable Delhi High Court, it would be entirely in the discretion of the DPC to draw suitable inference from the record of past ten years of the Applicant and decide on the suitability or otherwise of the employee for promotion. In this view of the matter there is no scope for interference in this OA, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
( MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER ) ( L.K. JOSHI )
Member (J) Vice Chairman (A)
/dkm/