Delhi High Court
Ashok Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 6 July, 2011
Author: Anil Kumar
* 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
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
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
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
