O.A. NO. 2130/2006 with O.A. NO. 1002/2006. Case: 1. Head Constable Anumial Haq, S/o Late Shri Mustafa Khan, 2. Sh. Rameshwar Dass, S/o late Ranjit Singh Vs 1. Govt. of NCTD, through Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, 2. Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, 4. The Union of India, through its Secretary, New Delhi, 5. Additional Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, 6. Dy. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberO.A. NO. 2130/2006 with O.A. NO. 1002/2006
Party Name1. Head Constable Anumial Haq, S/o Late Shri Mustafa Khan, 2. Sh. Rameshwar Dass, S/o late Ranjit Singh Vs 1. Govt. of NCTD, through Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, 2. Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, 4. The Union of India, through its Secretary, New Delhi, 5. Additional Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, 6. Dy. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi
CounselFor the Appellant: Shri Sachin Chauhan and For the Respondent: Mrs. P.K. Gupta
JudgesMr. M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J) and Mr. N. D. Dayal, Member (A)
IssueDelhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980 - Rules 5 (1), 7(ii), 8 (d)(i)
Judgement DateFebruary 23, 2009
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Order:

Mr. M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J), (At Principal Bench)

  1. These two O.As are being disposed of by a common order, as agreed to by the parties. There might be some dissimilarity in the facts but the legal question to be decided is similar, namely, as to whether a person who has been subjected to a penalty of forfeiture of service/reduction in pay on a temporary basis, would nevertheless be entitled to be considered for promotion, or whether his rights are to be treated as forfeited because of the punishment. In the course of examination, we may have to advert to the relevant provisions as obtainable in the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980 as well as Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, in an attempt to reconcile the possible contra positions, as may appear, and a process of harmonious interpretation should be required to be adopted in the course of the examination of the rival contentions.

  2. Mr. Anumial Haq, applicant in OA 2130/2006, is working as Head Constable in the Delhi Police. In terms of Rule 5 (1) of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, there are two stages in the course of selection to the higher cadre viz that of Assistant Sub Inspectors (Executive). After the preliminary selection, he was admitted to Promotion List, known as List D-1, by the Headquarters Notification dated 12.06.2003. Such a person is expected to pass Intermediate School Course after attending the classes. Since he has successfully completed it, his name had been admitted to the Promotion List (List D-2) Executive by Notification dated 02.08.2004.

  3. However, during the relevant time, applicant had been charge sheeted on an allegation that on the night of 21/22.03.2003, he had torn the original and copy of an official document. In due course, the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 22.10.2003, had imposed a punishment of forfeiture of three years approved service permanently on him, for the proven misconduct. Since an appeal preferred by the officer had been rejected, he had preferred OA2629/2004, which, on its turn, had been disposed of by the Principal Bench of the CAT on 28.06.2005. Taking note of the extenuating circumstances of the case and also the circumstance that the officer himself had on the same night copied the entries in the daily dairy of the police station, and suggesting that he might have acted in a perplexion, Tribunal expressed a view that the penalty awarded was disproportionate to...

To continue reading

Request your trial