Delhi High Court
Devender Kumar vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 29 September, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (C) No.7248/2011
% Date of Decision: September 29, 2011
DEVENDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Anil Singal, Adv.
Versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Additional
Standing Counsel with Mr.
Abhijeet Kakoti, Adv. for R-1-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
%
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
After conducting departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority
by order dated 1st June, 2007 directed that the five years' approved service
of the petitioner herein, Devender Kumar, be forfeited permanently with
immediate effect entailing reduction in his pay from Rs. 4220/- P.M. to
Rs. 3795/- P.M. It was also directed that the suspension period from 13th
September, 2006 to 19th October, 2006 should be treated as 'not spent on
duty'. The Appellate Authority by order dated 9th May, 2008 reduced the
punishment to that of forfeiture of three years' approved service,
permanently entailing a reduction of pay from 4220/- P.M. to Rs.3965/-
P.M. The treatment of the suspension period was upheld.
2. The petitioner, Constable in Delhi Police, challenged the enquiry
proceedings and the punishment in O.A.No.1796/2009, which has been
dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench
(tribunal, for short) by the order dated 17th May, 2010.
3. This writ petition has been filed after about fifteen months from the
date of the passing of the impugned order by the tribunal. Learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the enquiry proceedings are vitiated as the
MLC and the doctor's report that the petitioner had consumed alcohol or
was smelling of alcohol was not proved and consequently the allegation
that the petitioner had consumed alcohol was not proved. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that blood sample was not taken and,
therefore, the orders of the authorities are based upon mere surmises and
conjectures.
4. We do not find any merit in the contentions raised. Pursuant to DD
No.57 dated 10th September, 2006 and Report dated 11th September, 2006,
departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide order
dated 10th October, 2006. The allegation against the petitioner was that he,
in a drunken condition, had misbehaved with Sub Inspector Shiv Raj
Singh. Seven witnesses were examined before the enquiry officer. The
statement of said witnesses have been highlighted and referred to in the
enquiry report. They have stated that the petitioner had abused SI Shiv
Raj Singh and other officials and had physically pushed the staff and had
also raised his hand to slap SI Shiv Raj Singh. It has been also recorded
that the petitioner apparently had a fight with someone else and was under
the influence of alcohol. Even the two defense witnesses did not fully
support the case of the petitioner and had stated that they heard noises and
had seen petitioner and SI Shiv Raj Singh quarrelling.
5. The petitioner was/is in service with the Delhi Police and was/is
expected to maintain discipline. The authorities concerned after
conducting a detailed enquiry, in which principles of natural justice were
followed and after examining the material have come to the conclusion
that the petitioner had misbehaved and had committed an act of
indiscipline with deliberate intention. The tribunal has upheld the said
findings holding, inter alia, that there was sufficient material, even if the
medical reports were ignored.
6. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to interfere with
the order passed by the tribunal and accordingly the present petition is
dismissed in limine.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011
NA/VKR
