Jagmal Singh vs Commissioner Of Police on 11 October, 2023
6.2 Shri Luthra has also submitted that the impugned
orders are in clear violation of the respondents' own
circulars dated 28.12.1998 and 11.9.2007, which
categorically provides that the powers under Article 311
(2)(b) is not to be used as a short-cut and instructions
contained in the said circular has to be strictly followed,
which has not been done by the respondents in the
instant case, as there is no proof on record to say that the
applicant is in a position to influence the witnesses and
further there is no reason given by the respondents that
when the same witnesses can appear before the learned
Trial Court to depose against the applicant and as to why
they will not appear in the departmental inquiry. Rather
the disciplinary and the appellate authorities have passed
the impugned orders without application of mind to the
conditions as contained in the aforesaid circulars.
6.3 Lastly Shri Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant,
has submitted that the issue involved in the present case
is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the
case of Ct. Sumit Sharma vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and
9 OA No.2209/2022
others (OA 1383/2020 and a batch decided on 10.2.2022)
and also subsequent decisions of this Tribunal on similar
issue in OA Nos.2097/2019 (Neeraj Kumar vs.
Commissioner of Police decided on 1.11.2019),
2867/2019 (Jasmohinder Singh vs. Commissioner of
Police decided on 16.10.2020), 702/2019 (Dharmender
Singh Dangi vs. Commissioner of Police decided on
7.1.2021) and 1912/2015 (Kripal Singh vs.
Commissioner of Police decided on 11.3.202)1etc.