Phool Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 828 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              Writ Petition (Civil ) No. 870/2011


Phool Singh                           ....Petitioner
                    Through      Mr. Anil Singal, Advocate.

                    VERSUS

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & ors.           .....Respondent
                 Through Ms. Zeenat Masoohi for
                             Mr. Najmi Waziri, Standing Counsel.

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?

                                 ORDER

%                               10.02.2011

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 9th

December, 2009 dismissing the OA No. 155/2008 filed by the petitioner

Phool Singh.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

Tribunal has erred in failing to notice that the disciplinary authority had

disagreed with the report of the enquiry officer but without

disagreement note and explanation from the petitioner, it has been

held that the medical certificates produced by the petitioner were

doubtful and should not be accepted. It is submitted that the charge of

misconduct and willful absence, thus, was not proved or established.

3. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is dated 9th

December, 2009 and the present writ petition was filed in January,

2011. There is no explanation for the delay and latches of more than

one year in approaching this Court. Even otherwise, on merits we do

not find any reason or justification to interfere with the order of the

Tribunal dated 9th December, 2009. The inquiry report was against the

petitioner. The undisputed facts as recorded by the Tribunal in

paragraph 2 of the order read as follows:-

"2. The applicant commenced service as Police Constable on 2.5.1986. He had a chequered career of service and it is shown that he had been absenting himself from duty more or less regularly. In fact, it is indicated that on 38 different occasions during his career, he had been subjected to minor and major penalties in an effort to awaken him to the requirements of his duty as member of a disciplined force. But instead of trying to be in line, the applicant had

been erratic. He had absented for 128 days without information in 2003. He had thereafter rejoined but from 29.8.2003 had again remained absent without disclosing his whereabouts for another 250 days. He had reported again but from 24.5.2004 onwards remained absent for 72 days. It was in this context that the summary of allegations had been served on him."

4. The aforesaid facts speak themselves and show the callous and

the casual manner in which the petitioner had habitually and

repeatedly absented himself. We do not find any infirmity and illegality

in the impugned order which requires interference in exercise of

discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226. The writ petition is

accordingly dismissed in limine. No costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE February 10, 2011 kkb