OA 749/2010 with OA 2074/2010. Case: 1. Ajay Kumar, Constable, Delhi, 2. Ct. Sunil Kumar S/o Dharamvir Singh Vs 1. Government of (NCT), Through Commissioner of Police, Police HQ, 2. Additional Commissioner Police, Delhi Armed Police, 3. Dy. Commissioner, 4th Bn. DAP, Delhi, 4. Special Commissioner of Police, Armed Police, Delhi, Through Commissioner of Police, Police Head Quarters, 5. Dy. Commissioner of Police, 4th Bn. DAP, Delhi, Through Commissioner of Police, 6. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Delhi, Through Commissioner of Police, 7. Dy. Commissioner of Police, (Vigilance/Delhi), Through Commissioner of Police. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | OA 749/2010 with OA 2074/2010 |
| Judges | G. George Paracken (Judicial Member) & Dr. A. K. Mishra (Accountant Member) |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | July 28, 2011 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
Dr. A. K. Mishra (Accountant Member), (Principal Bench New Delhi)
-
Applicant Constable Ajay Kumar has filed OA-749/2010 and applicant Constable Sunil Kumar has filed OA-2074/2010. Both of them have challenged the penalty order dated 08.04.2009 of the Disciplinary Authority (DA) imposing the punishment of forfeiture of two years of their permanent service and corresponding reduction in their pay. They have also challenged the common order passed by the Appellate Authority (AA) on 08.12.2009 rejecting their common appeal.
-
Since identical reliefs have been prayed for by them and the cause of action is the same, both the OAs were taken up together for a common hearing and the order passed in this O.A. will be applicable in respect of OA-2074/2010.
-
Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
3.1 In order to keep a check on the activities of the traffic police staff a vigilance (PRG) team was detailed on 18.07.2007 for surveillance in Shahadra Traffic Police Circle. Both the applicants and one Traffic Head Constable Iqbal Husain were on duty at Shahadra-7 (SHD-7). The allegations are that surveillance party noticed the applicants negotiating with the driver of a Registered Transport Vehicle (RTV). Subsequently they followed the RTV, stopped it and sent for the owner of the vehicle; at their instance the owner made a re-entrance to the eastern end of Old Iron Bridge, negotiated with the traffic staff about their demand for 'entry money', paid Rs.200/- and assured to pay Rs.500/- every month in that regard. The vigilance team stopped him, allegedly coming to know of the story, proceeded to the spot, but at their approach both the applicants fled from the scene. The only difference in allegations is that Constable Ajay Sharma demanded and finalized the deal, whereas Constable Sunil Kumar received the first installment of Rs.200/-. The vigilance team recorded the statement of the owner and made a report on the basis of which a common departmental proceeding was initiated against the applicants on 01.04.2008. On denial of charges, an inquiry was held and the Inquiry Officer (IO) found them guilty. They gave representations against the findings, but the DA held them guilty and imposed the impugned penalty. On rejection of their appeal, the present OAs have been filed.
-
The main ground on which the penalty orders have been challenged is that it is based on no evidence. It is their case that Gajendra Singh, the owner of the vehicle...
To continue reading
Request your trial