Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rect. Constable Raja Ram vs Govt. Of Nctd on 22 December, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.3677/2010 New Delhi, this the 22nd day of December, 2011 Honble Mr. Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Rect. Constable Raja Ram S/o Shri Jai Narayan Aged 21 years, R/o VPO-Sisar Khass-124112, The Mehram, Distt Rohtak, State Haryana. Applicant. (By Advocate : Sh. Sachin Chauhan) Versus 1. Govt. of NCTD Through the Commissioner of Police Police Headquarters, I. P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Addl. Commissioner of Police Police Training College, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi. Through Police Headquarters, IP Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 3. The Principal Police Training College, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi. Through Police Headquarters I. P. Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. ..Respondents. (By Advocates : Md. Shabab Alam for Sh. Nasir Ahmed) : O R D E R (ORAL) : Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman :
The applicant was selected on the post of Constable and was appointed on 8.01.2010. Within six months of the applicants joining, when he was undergoing training, a show cause notice came to be issued to him that while securing the job of the Constable he concealed his involvement in a criminal case in FIR No.333/2007 dated 19.12.2007 u/s 292/323/452/506/34 IPC which was registered against him. The applicant responding to the show cause notice primarily pleaded that he would not know the position of law that such an information was required to be given. To be precise, the plea raised by the applicant in the reply to the show cause notice is that as far as he understood, the information was to be given only as regards the cases which may be pending. Even though there is no specific mention in the show cause notice but it is admitted that the applicant was acquitted in the said case on 2.06.2008. For concealing involvement of the applicant in a case aforesaid, his services have been terminated vide order dated 25.08.2010 which is the order impugned in the present OA filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. There is no need to go into the details of the matter as the controversy that confronts the Tribunal in this OA is covered by a recent decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Rajesh Kumar versus Commissioner of Police & Another [WP (C) No.8372/2010 decided on 22.11.2011]. In fact, we have constituted a Full Bench considering prima facie that there may be a conflict of opinion in two decisions of Honble Supreme court, one in Daya Shankar Yadav versus Union of India [(2010) 12 SCALE 477] and the latter one given recently in the matter of Commissioner of Police versus Sandeep Kumar [(2010) 4 SCC 644]. In Rajesh Kumars case (supra), both the judgments were taken into consideration and it has been held that the judgment of Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumars case (supra) is an extension or development of law. In view of the decision of the Delhi High Court, we disposed of a matter which was before us in a Full Bench, as nothing survived for us to decide, as the controversy stood concluded by the judgment of High Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra). The matter thus appears to be covered in favour of the applicant by the recent decision of the High Court referred to above, and, therefore, the impugned order dated 25.08.2010 terminating the services of the applicant needs to be set aside. So ordered. The applicant shall be taken back in service forthwith and shall be entitled to all consequential benefits as he may be entitled to under the Rules. Disposed of accordingly.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (V. K. Bali) Member (A) Chairman /pj/