Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav vs The Commissioner Of Police on 10 January, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.68/2011 Monday, this the 10th day of January 2010 Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Honble Dr. K.B. Suresh, Member (J) Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav Roll No.803686 s/o Shri Balkishan Yadav r/o VPO Khaira, near Najafgarh Near DVB Pole No.14 Delhi-43 ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Sachin Chauhan) Versus 1. The Commissioner of Police Police Headquarters, I P Estate MSO Building, New Delhi 2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police Establishment Through Commissioner of Police Police Headquarters, IP Estate MSO Building, New Delhi 3. The Dy. Commissioner of Police Prov & Logistics 5 Rajpur Road, Delhi ..Respondents O R D E R (ORAL)
Dr. Veena Chhotray:
The applicant, an aspirant for the post of Constable (Driver) in the Delhi Police, on the basis of recruitment in the year 2009, though selected provisionally, has been issued a show cause notice dated 19.7.2010 (Annexure A-1) on the ground of not being in possession of a valid HTV license on the date of applying for the post, as stipulated in the advertisement. Besides, it is also mentioned that after the verification from the concerned licensing authority District Transport Officer, Mathura, it has been found that applicants license was not valid. It is also stated that in the application form the applicant had not suppressed furnishing of correct information, despite a clear warning.
2. The applicant had been asked to furnish the show cause within 15 days from the date of its receipt (Annexure A-2). A written reply dated 4.8.2010 denying the allegations was submitted. Also the applicant after a personal hearing on 9.12.2010 before the DCP (Establishment) (respondent No.2) had made a further representation dated 4.12.2010 to the DCP (Establishment) (Annexure A-12). However, no final decision has been taken. On the other hand, as averred in paragraph 1.2 of the OA, persons lower in merit than the applicant are being appointed.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Sachin Chauhan at length, we are of the considered view that at the present stage, it would be in the interest of justice to dispose of this OA in limine by giving a direction to respondent No.2 to take a final decision in the aforesaid representation dated 4.12.2010 along with the present OA being treated as a supplementary representation, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by passing a speaking and reasoned order. At the request of the learned counsel for the applicant, we also clearly specify that while considering this case, the respondents would specifically consider the Annexures A-5, A-6, A-11 and A-13 annexed with this OA.
Issue dasti.
( Dr. K.B. Suresh ) ( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) Member (J) Member (A) /sunil/