Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Satender Pal vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 22 August, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.2088/2011 New Delhi this the 22nd day of August, 2012 Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Honble Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) Satender Pal, PIS No.28871394, Constable in Delhi Police, Aged about 43 years, S/o Shri Lal Singh, R/o VPO : Ailum, PS : Kandhla, Distt. Muzaffar Nagar, UP. .. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Anil Singal) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Commissioner of Police, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Special C.P. (Armed Police,) PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. D.C.P. (3rd Bn. DAP), Vikas Puri Lines, New Delhi. .. Respondents (By Advocate : Shri Nitesh Kumar Singh for Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat) O R D E R (ORAL)
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Applicant has sought the following relief:
a) To call for the records of the case and quash/set aside the impugned orders mentioned in Para-1 of O.A., direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits including promotion/seniority & arrears of pay.
To award costs in favor of the applicant and To pass any order or orders which this Honble Tribunal may deem just an equitable in the fats and circumstances of the case.
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that departmental enquiry was initiated against the applicant on 08.12.2009 on the following allegations:
It is alleged against Ct. Satender Pal, No.4385/T, now 7503/DAP (PIS No. 28871394) that on 11.06.09, Sh. Kapoor Singh s/o Sh. Kartar Singh, r/o H.No.479, Ward No.12, Village-Shershah, Distt. Sonipat, Hariyana approached A.C. Branch with a complaint alleging therein that he went to the court of Sh. Thakur Dass, Special M.M. (Traffic) Sham Nath Marg, Delhi in connection with some challan of the vehicles of his company. In the court, Sh. Satender was working as Naib Court offered to get the challans disposed off without any receipt and demanding money Rs.3000/- for this. On bargaining, the matter was settled for Rs.1800/-. The Naib Court promised that he would dispose off the challans and the papers will be returned next day. On this a raid was organized and trap was laid to apprehended the Naib Court. Ct. Satender Pal. No.4385/T was apprehended red handed while demanding, accepting and obtaining bribe money of Rs.1800/- in the presence of panch witness. The tainted money recovered from the possession of Ct. Satender Pal, No.4385/T, now 7503/DAP. A case FIR No. 13/09 dated 11.06.09 u/s 7/13 P.O.C. Act, PS A.C. Branch was registered against Ct. Satender Pal and he was arrested in this case. Later, he was granted bail by the concerned court on 07.07.09.
For the above said lapse, Ct. Satender Pal, No.4385/T, now 7503/DAP was placed under suspension by DCP/Traffic (HQ) with effect from 11.06.09 i.e. from the date of his arrest vide order No.6159-76/HAP-T (D-II/HQ) dated 17.06.09.
However, simultaneously criminal FIR 13/2009 was also lodged against the applicant on the same allegations. After holding the enquiry, charge was held as proved. Accordingly, applicant was removed from service vide order dated 22.01.2011. He filed an appeal which too was rejected on 25.03.2011.
3. Though counsel for the applicant had taken number of grounds to challenge the above orders but at the time of arguments, he stated that a development has taken place during the pendency of this case, inasmuch as he has been exonerated in the criminal case vide judgment dated 06.07.2012, which is annexed at page 60 of the OA. In view of above, as per Full Benchs judgment given by this Tribunal in the case of Sukhdev Singh, punishment has to be revisited.
4. Counsel for the respondents did not dispute this position and infact stated that punishment has to be revisited as per the orders passed by the Full Bench.
5. We have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings also.
6. As per the Full Benchs judgment decided on 18.02.2011 in the case of Sukhdev Singh & Another Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others, it has been held as follows:
In view of the discussion made above, we hold that there is no bar, express of implied, in the Rules of 1980 for holding simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings. However, in case departmental proceedings may culminate into an order of punishment earlier in point of time than that of the verdict in criminal case, and the acquittal is such that departmental proceedings cannot be held for the reasons as mentioned in Rule 12, the order of punishment shall be re-visited. The judicial verdict would have precedence over decision in departmental proceedings and the subordinate rank would be restored to his status with consequential reliefs.
We were also informed by the counsel for the respondents that the judgment of the Full Bench has attained finality.
7. In view of above, this matter is remitted back to the authorities for passing fresh orders keeping in view the judgment in the criminal case and the observations as made by the Full Bench in the case of Sukhdev Singh & Another Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others. This should be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the applicant.
8. With the above directions, OA stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Mrs. Manjulika Gautam) (Mrs. Meera Chhibber)
Member (A) Member (J)
/jyoti/