O.A. 560/2008. Case: 1. Constable Rakesh Kumar; 2. Constable Umesh Arote Vs 1. Government of N. C. T. D., Commissioner of Police, New Delhi; 2. Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi; 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberO.A. 560/2008
CounselSachin Chauhan, Rishi Prakash
JudgesM. Ramachandran (Vice Chairman) & N. D. Dayal (Accountant Member)
IssueService Laws
Judgement DateMarch 20, 2009
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment:

M. Ramachandran (Vice Chairman), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)

  1. The two applicants in the present case are Constables in the Delhi Police. They have been subjected to penalty on same set of facts. The disciplinary authority had held that forfeiture of one year's approved service permanently is to be imposed on Constable Rakesh Kumar, the first applicant and forfeiture of two years' approved service is to be imposed on Constable Umesh Arote, the second applicant. In appeal, the appellate authority felt that the gravity of the punishment as far as the second applicant is concerned, appeared to be harsh and it had been equated and reduced to forfeiture of one year approved service permanently. As far as the first applicant was concerned, appellate authority did not choose to interfere in the matter.

  2. Mr. Sachin Chauhan, counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, submits that there were even no definite charges and only scanty materials were made available in the inquiry, and notwithstanding, the Inquiry Officer had mistakenly come to a conclusion that the charge had been proved. He further argued that the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer itself was ambiguous and one may not be able to assume as to what has prompted him to come to the conclusion, which is to the following effect:

    As per the statement of the prosecution witnesses, defence witnesses and other relevant documents on the file it has been established that the delinquents failed to do their basic duty of tenant verification and to collect intelligence regarding illegal refilling of Gas Cylinders in the rented premises of basement of H. No. T-86 falling in the jurisdiction of their beat. But it appears that the delinquents have win over one of the PWs PW-2 in their favour. In these circumstances the charge served upon the delinquents stands partially proved.

  3. Mr. Chauhan submits that the expression that the charge served upon the delinquent stand partially proved is no finding in the eye of law. He had drawn support from a decision of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal dated 17.11.2004 in OA 535A and 656 of 2004. It had been held as following:

    We have already reproduced above the operative part of the report of the inquiry officer. The inquiry officer, as already referred to above, had framed a charge. This pertained to the fact that the applicants were doing illegal checking of the vehicles near Lokesh Cinema Nangloi on Rohtak Road with malafide intention...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT