Asi Bikram Singh vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2009 Latest Caselaw 5281 Del

*                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.

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

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.

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'