* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.560/2007
% Date of Decision: 06.07.2011
Ashok Kumar .... Petitioner
Through Nemo
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. .... Respondents
Through Mr.V.K.Tandon, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
1. Whether reporters of Local papers NO
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be NO
reported in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18th May, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.739/2005 titled as 'Ashok Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.', dismissing his original application seeking quashing of Order No.12818-833/HAP/NWD(P-I) dated 8th December, 2003 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of WP(C) No.560/2007 Page 1 of 4 withholding of petitioner's next increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect and treating his suspension period from 6th February, 2003 to 8th September, 2003 as period not spent on duty.
2. The allegation against the petitioner was that on 6th February, 2003 he was detailed for duty from 2.00 pm to 8.00 pm at back gate of Distt. Line/NW. It was alleged that at 2.20 pm he checked his service revolver in the Duty Officer room and during checking, he had mishandled his service revolver, due to which accidental fire took place, causing injury to Head Constable Joginder Singh who was rushed to S.L.Jain Hospital, Ashok Vihar where he was discharged after first aid. This act was construed as gross misconduct, negligence, carelessness and dereliction in discharge of official duty by the petitioner. After a detailed enquiry, the petitioner has been imposed punishment of withholding of his next increment for a period of one year and treating his suspension as not spent on duty.
3. Before the Tribunal the main plea of the petitioner was that there was no negligence on his part in handling of his service revolver. Relying on the report of the enquiry office and decision of the Disciplinary Authority, the Tribunal however, held that it was WP(C) No.560/2007 Page 2 of 4 clear that there was mishandling of service revolver by the petitioner while checking it due to which accidental fire took place, causing injury to Head Constable Joginder Singh and repelled contentions of the petitioner that in handling the service revolver there had not been any negligence on his part and dismissed the original application of the petitioner.
4. The Tribunal also dealt with all the pleas and contentions raised by the petitioner and the precedent relied on by the petitioner in extenso.
5. The matter was taken up for hearing on 26th August, 2009 however, no one was present on behalf of the petitioner and the matter was adjourned to 24th November, 2009. Thereafter, the matter was again taken up on 25th November, 2009, however, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The matter was, however, allowed to remain on board in the category of 'Regular Matters'.
6. Thereafter, the matter was again taken up on 5th July, 2011, however, again no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. No adverse order was passed against the petitioner on that date in the WP(C) No.560/2007 Page 3 of 4 interest of justice and the matter was allowed to remain on board in the category of 'Regular Matters'.
7. Today, again no one is present on behalf of the petitioner. In the circumstances, this Court has no other option but to dismiss the writ petition in default of appearance of the petitioner and his counsel. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in default.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
July 06, 2011.
vk WP(C) No.560/2007 Page 4 of 4