* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No.13918/2009
% Date of Decision: 17.12.2009
ASI Bikram Singh .... Petitioner
Through Mr.Ajesh Luthra, Advocate.
Versus
Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors .... Respondents
Through Ms.Jyoti Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
* The petitioner was imposed a penalty of withholding of two increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect on account of intentionally causing delay in the arrest of an accused in a vehicle accident case, not investigating the case properly and also not nor mentioning about the meeting of 5th August, 2002 with the accused in the case diary of that day and then arresting the accused on 10th December, 2002 i.e after four months which was allegedly on account of malafide intention on the part of the petitioner. W. P. (C.) No. 13918 of 2009 Page 1 of 4
An enquiry as contemplated under Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 was conducted against the petitioner following the rules and regulations and the established procedures. The enquiry officer after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and after complying with the principles of natural justice held the petitioner guilty of the charges attributed to him and the Disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of withholding of two increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect vide order dated 21st September, 2004.
Against the order of the Disciplinary authority, the petitioner had filed an appeal which was also dismissed upholding the punishment vide order dated 3rd June, 2005. Thereafter the petitioner filed an original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the Central Administrative Tribunal which has also been dismissed by order dated 16th October, 2008 which is impugned by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized on certain evidence allegedly in favour of the petitioner. The tribunal had considered the similar plea of the petitioner and had held that the orders of the Disciplinary authority and the Appellate authority are based on facts and their orders are reasoned and speaking orders and deal with the points specifically raised by the petitioner. The tribunal had also held that it could not function as an Appellate authority nor W. P. (C.) No. 13918 of 2009 Page 2 of 4 could it step into the shoes of Administrative and Appellate authorities to re-appreciate the evidence. Moreover, the petitioner had not made out any such illegality or irregularity or violation of principles of natural justice which would call for interference with the findings of the said authorities.
In the writ petition also the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out any such illegality or irregularity or the violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry and holding the petitioner liable for punishment, which will require interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
From the facts alleged it is apparent that there was an intentional delay in not arresting the accused when the petitioner met him and then suddenly he was arrested after 4 months on 10th December, 2002. The plea of the petitioner that there is violation of Rule 15(3) on the ground that the enquiry was conducted by an ASI (petitioner also belongs to the ASI rank) rather than an officer superior to the petitioner is also found to be without any basis and factually incorrect. The enquiry was initially entrusted to an officer of ACP rank but the said officer was later on transferred. Thereafter, the enquiry was entrusted to an IO of Inspector rank who was superior to the petitioner. W. P. (C.) No. 13918 of 2009 Page 3 of 4
In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out any ground for interference by this Court. There is no such illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal which shall require any interference by this Court.
The writ petition, therefore, is without any merit and it is dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
December 17, 2009 VIPIN SANGHI, J.
'k'
W. P. (C.) No. 13918 of 2009 Page 4 of 4