Hc Rohtash Singh vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through ... on 24 April, 2008
2. Brief facts that may require necessary mention at this stage only with a view to determine the controversy as mentioned above, reveal that the applicant Rohtash Singh, sequel to a regular departmental enquiry has been inflicted punishment of forfeiture of three years approved service permanently entailing reduction in his pay, which order passed by the disciplinary has since been confirmed by the appellate authority. He has challenged orders of punishment in the present Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. One of the points pressed in support of the Application is that while the applicant was posted in the office of DCP Traffic, Delhi, a preliminary enquiry was conducted under the supervision of Shri R.K.Jha, ACP/PRG in which number of statements were recorded and thereafter on the basis of the preliminary enquiry report, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him and three other police officials. It is the case of the applicant that the departmental enquiry is vitiated on the ground of violation of rule 15(2) of the Rules of 1980, as preliminary enquiry was conducted against the applicant which disclosed commission of a cognizable offence in official relations with the public, but no prior approval of the Additional Commissioner was obtained before ordering the departmental enquiry as per rule 15(2). The plea as raised now during the course of arguments is not the same as raised in the pleadings. However, inasmuch as, it is a question of law and as such permissibility to raise the same may not depend upon pleadings, we will determine the same. It is pertinent to mention here that in the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents, even though there is no specific denial with regard to preliminary enquiry having been conducted, it is urged by the learned Counsel representing the respondents that the enquiry as styled by the applicant to be preliminary enquiry was in fact a PRG raid, which would not partake the character of a preliminary enquiry as envisaged under rule 15(2). It is urged that a Full Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of Constable Gyanender v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors OA No. 2425/2006 decided on 22.8.2007 has held that PRG raids per se would not be preliminary enquiries contemplated under rule 15(2) of the Rules of 1980, unless ordered by the competent authority. In fact, it is urged by the learned Counsel representing the respondents that the point raised by the applicant would not arise in the facts and circumstances of this case as there was no preliminary enquiry as contemplated in rule 15(2). We would leave this point open for debate before the appropriate Bench before whom the matter may come up after the decision by this Full Bench. Suffice it to say at this stage that inasmuch as, the contention raised by the learned Counsel representing the applicant as noted above, is engaging attention of this Tribunal in number of cases, it would be appropriate to determine the same.