Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Police vs Anil Kumar Yadav And Anr. on 17 September, 2002
Author: S Sinha
Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, C.J.
1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated
29.11.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter for the sake of
brevity referred to as, 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 342 of
2001 whereby and whereunder the Original Application
filed by the respondent No. 1 herein was allowed.
2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.
On a charge that during surprise checking of buses
conducted by the PRG staff on 01.05.1997 at 'T' point
Noida in Kalyanpuri Circle, bus No. DL-1P-0191, DEP-4192, DEP-6218 and DL-1P-1457 were found plying
without valid permits, the respondent No. 1 herein was
awarded the punishment of Censure vide order dated
10.11.1997. The respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal
thereagainst wherein the aforementioned order of
punishment was set aside vide order dated 13.04.1998.
The Commissioner of Police, however, in exercise of his
powers conferred upon him under Rule 25B of the Delhi
Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 (in short, 'the
said Rules') suo moto set aside the order of the appellate
authority and confirmed the punishment of Censure vide
order dated 29.12.1998.
Challenging the said order dated 29.12.1998 passed by the
Commissioner of Police, the respondent No. 1 filed the
aforesaid Original Application before the Tribunal.
3. The leaned Tribunal on the ground that the provisions of
Rule 25B of the said Rules have been struck down as ultra
vires by a Full Bench of the Tribunal allowed the said
Original Application.
4. The question as to whether Rule 25B of the said Rules is
ultra vires the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (in short, 'the said
Act') or not had also been considered by this Bench in
C.W.P. No. 2866 of 1999 and other connected matters
decided on today itself, i.e., 17.09.2002 wherein the
judgment of the Full Bench of the Tribunal has been
upheld.
Furthermore, the Administration itself has issued a
circular on or about 28.05.2001, which is to the following
effect:-
"CIRCULAR
As per prevailing practice, a number of
revision petitions addressed to the
Commissioner of Police, Delhi are being
received in PHQ for consideration and
decision. Recently a full bench of Hon'ble
C.A.T. have made a decision vide its judgment
dated 14.9.2000 in six difference O.A. Nos.
77/97, 2283/97, 1988/99, 2800/99,
532/2000 and 537/2000, that Rule 25-B of
Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal)
Amendment Rules, 1983 is ultra vires of the
provisions of the Delhi Police Act, and has
been set aside, following the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
State of Mysore v. H.D. Kolkar AIR 1974 SC
90.
On receipt of C.A.T.'s judgment dated
14.9.2000, with L.A. to C.P. Delhi and it was
decided that Rule 25-A 'Revision' has also no
legal force, in view of C.A.T.'s decision dated
14.9.2000. Hence, no revision petition can lie
to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. Since,
the Commissioner of Police, Delhi has no
longer revisionary powers, the petitioners in
future will be at liberty to move the court after
having his/her first appeal considered and
rejected by the appellate authority against the
order of disciplinary authority. So far as
appeals to the C.P. Delhi against the
punishment orders of Addl. Cs. P./Jt.
Cs.P./Spl. Cs.P., are concerned, the same will
continue to be entertained in PHQ as per the
existing Rule 23 of Delhi Police (Punishment &
Appeal) Rules, 1980.
Sd/-
(R.S. Ghumman) DCP/HQ
for Commissioner of Police: Delhi"
It is, therefore, evident that the petitioner has accepted the
fact that Rule 25B of the said Rules is ultra vires the
provisions of the said Act.
5. The question has also been considered at some length in
Union of India and Ors. v. Ex. Constable/Driver Dalbir Singh CWP No. 2731 of 2002 decided on today itself, i.e.,
17.09.2002.
6. Following the aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the
circular dated 28.05.2001 issued by the petitioner herein,
we find no merit in this writ petition, which is dismissed
accordingly. However in the facts and circumstances of
the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
