Delhi High Court
Upender Kumar vs The Commissioner Of Police, ... on 13 May, 2016
Author: Najmi Waziri
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgement delivered on: 13.05.2016
+ W.P.(C) 5549/2015
UPENDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr V.K. Tandon, Adv.
versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, POLICE
HEADQUARTER & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr R.A. Iyer, Adv. for Mr Gautam
Narayan, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J (ORAL)
1. This petition impugns the order dated 21.10.2014 passed in OA
No. 378/2014 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal
Bench (Tribunal for short), which dismissed the petitioner‟s challenge
to the termination order dated 01.03.2013. The petitioner was
inducted into the Delhi Police as a Constable on compassionate
ground after his father who was working as Head Constable in Police
Force, expired on 13.03.2009. During his basic training course,
within a short span of between 01.10.2012 to 01.03.2013, the
petitioner absented himself on five different occasions without any
intimation to the Police Training School. The days on which the
petitioners was absent, are as follows:
W.P.(C) 5549/2015 Page 1 of 5
S. Date of absent Period of Action taken
No. absence
1 06/07-11.12 11 hrs. 1 day‟s C.L. and 7
days extra drill
2 13.11.12 to 4 days Dies non
17.11.12 (Mother‟s
treatment)
3 11.12.12 to 3 days Dies non
14.12.12 and 8 (Mother‟s
hrs. treatment)
4 20.01.13 to 12.15 1 day EOL and
21.01.13 hrs. warned to be
careful in future
5 17.02.13 to 16.30 Not spent on duty
18.02.13 hrs.
2. The Vice-Principal summoned all recruits who had absented
themselves on two or more occasions for counselling. The petitioner
assured the Vice-Principal that he would be careful in future and will
pay full attention towards the training. Nevertheless, three days later,
on 17/18.02.2013, the petitioner again absented himself from the
training school for a period of 16 hrs. 30 minutes.
3. Taking into account the petitioner‟s regular absenteeism in a
disciplined force, which would amount to serious misconduct and
would raise doubts about his commitment and reliability of such
personnel in times of need, the Delhi Police terminated his services
under Sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services
(Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 with immediate effect. However,
before doing so, the respondent had issued a show cause notice on
16.01.2013 asking the petitioner for an explanation as to why his
unauthorized and wilful absence from the training institute should not
W.P.(C) 5549/2015 Page 2 of 5
be treated as period not spent on duty, keeping in view that such
absence during training amounts to gross misconduct, negligence and
carelessness on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a
reply on 09.01.2013 in which he stated that his absence was due to the
illness of his mother. However, the respondent did not find this
explanation convincing because the petitioner had repeatedly
absented himself without leave and his conduct was contrary to CCS
(Leave) Rules, 1972 and Standing Order No. 16/2010. By the order
dated 01.03.2013, the petitioner‟s services were terminated.
4. The learned Tribunal was of the view that the petitioner had on
five different occasions, in a short span of five months during training
had absented himself without authorization for about 9 days on the
plea that his mother was ailing. The efforts in counselling the
petitioner went futile.
5. The termination order does not contain any statement or
assertion that would indicate that the termination order was stigmatic.
The learned Tribunal reasoned in paragraph 10 that:
"...10. As regards the judgement cited by the learned
counsel for the applicant in the case of Dipti Prakash
Banerjee (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that
whether an order of termination is not a simple order of
termination, but attaches „stigma‟ would depend on facts
and circumstances of each case. Moreover, the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court also held that termination order is not
punitive where employee has been given suitable warnings
or has been advised to improve himself or where he has
been given a long rope by way of extension of probation. It
is true that the Hon‟ble Court has also held that stigma may
not be contained in the termination order itself but might be
contained in any document or proceeding referred to in the
termination order or in its annexure. Similar, is the position
W.P.(C) 5549/2015 Page 3 of 5
explained by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Mehbub Alam
Laskar (supra), Mahavir C. Singhvi (supra) and
Krushnakant B. Parmar (supra). Each case is different and
the facts of the case would have to be seen in each case
separately. In this case, the facts are that on 5 different
occasions in a short period of five months of training, the
applicant had absented himself in an unauthorized manner
for about nine days. His plea of attending to his mother is
also not convincing, as he never applied for leave or station
leave, either before going on leave or after coming back
from leave. The Department tried counselling him it was in
vain. The termination order contains no statement or does
not rely upon any document, which would indicate that the
termination attached any „stigma‟...."
6. The court would note that the order of termination of service
reads as under:
".... ORDER
In pursuance of the provision of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of
the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules,
1965, I P.K. Mishra, Dy. Commissioner of Police/ Vice
Principal, Police Training College, Jharoda Kalan, New
Delhi hereby terminate forthwith the services of Recruit
Constable Upender Kumar, No. 300-12/PTC (PIS No.
28122092) and direct that he shall be entitled to claim a
sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for
the period of notice of one month at the same rates at which
he was drawing them immediately before the termination of
his services:-
His particulars are as under:-
Father‟s name: Late Shjri Ashok Kumar
Address: VPO- Sankhol, Tensil- Bahadur Garh,
District- Jhajjar, Haryana
(P.K. Mishra)
DY. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
VICE PRINCIPAL (HQ),
POLICE TRG. COLLEGE,
W.P.(C) 5549/2015 Page 4 of 5
JHARODA KALAN, NEW DELHI.."
7. The aforesaid order does not mention any reason for the
termination. It is a termination simplicitor. The reasons for the
termination would be found in the show cause notice. The
termination order cannot be said to be stigmatic as it does not state
any reason or the background or circumstances leading to the
decision. We see no reason to differ with the conclusion arrived at by
the Tribunal. The petition is without merit and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
MAY 13, 2016
kk
