Delhi High Court
Ex. Const. Krishan Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 4 July, 2018
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 04.07.2018
+ W.P.(C) 3252/2003 & CM APPL No. 17318/2018
EX.CONST.KRISHAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj and
Ms. Gauraan, Advocate.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel, GNCTD (Services) and
Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Advocate with
ASI Rishi Raj, Delhi Police.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (ORAL)
%
The writ petitioner questions an order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter „CAT‟) rejecting his application
on 23.10.2002.
2. The petitioner worked at the relevant time as a constable with
the Delhi Police; he was initially recruited to that position in 1987.
Apparently, he was involved in a criminal case i.e. FIR No.79 dated
02.06.1992 under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act at PS Beri
District Rohtak Haryana. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner
for continued and unauthorised absence. In the proceedings before the
CAT, the departmental inquiry and the consequential order of his
dismissal, were challenged as illegal on the ground firstly, that such
proceedings were ex-parte and had led to failure of principles of
natural justice; the second argument was that the petitioner‟s
explanation for the absence was not only plausible but ought to have
been accepted since he was unable to report to duties and function in
the post on account of the medical ailment. The CAT however
rejected both arguments noticing that the departmental inquiry had
been completed in 1993 and that the petitioner had also approached it
after a considerable delay.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the CAT
fell into error in overlooking that for a considerable period i.e. 8 to 9
years the medical disability of serious heart ailment prevented him
from approaching the Court. It is further submitted that atleast the
petitioner ought to have been served with a copy of the charge-sheet
and given full opportunity to defend himself. In this regard it is
pointed out that the petitioner had in fact reported his illness from the
place where he was hospitalised and this ought to have been taken into
consideration. Learned counsel also relied upon copies of the medical
records to say that even as late as in 1999 the petitioner suffered from
blockage of the arteries which establishes that his case of being unable
to report for duties, was justified. Learned counsel lastly submitted
that the respondent-authorities ought to have taken note of the absence
and genuine reasons and imposed a proportionate penalty instead of
the severe or extreme penalty of the dismissal.
4. The CAT, after extracting the relevant submissions, dismissed
the application preferred by the petitioner, firstly, on the ground of
limitation; it also noted the discrepancies and inadequacies in the
medical evidence relied upon. The relevant part of the Tribunal‟s
discussion, in this regard, is as follows:-
"12. Photo copy of the medical certificate shows
discontinuity and is an anti thesis to his plea of serious
illness. It is contended that if the applicant was so sick
how he was arrested in a criminal case. Applicant
himself has abundant the enquiry and despite notice
has not filed any reply to the findings. The
punishment order though received by him on 2.11.93
he preferred an appeal after more than 8 years without
any request for condonation of delay and without any
grounds. As such the same was rightly rejected as
time barred by the appellate authority. It is denied that
the past record was taken into consideration but the
very misconduct of remaining absent for more than
two years without any prior permission and
submissions of medical record the same itself
constitutes grave misconduct in a disciplined force to
warrant the extreme punishment. In a service career of
six years the applicant has shown carelessness and
dereliction of duties. ....., it is contended that the
orders passed by the respondents do not suffer from
any legal infirmity.
13 to 16. xxx xxx xxx
17. In the interest of justice we have also
considered the case on merits and find that the
applicants abruptly overstayed his leave and simply
sent an application without annexing medical record.
Applicant was also informed through absentee notices
and as one of the notices was served through his father
who assured that the applicant would appear in the
enquiry after the conclusion of the trial which ended in
November, 1992 but yet the applicant has not joined
and had not bothered to submit his defense. No
medical record etc. has been produced during the
course of the enquiry. As per Rules 18 of Delhi Police
(Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1930 if it is found that
the delinquent police officer is refusing to attend the
enquiry or evading it without any just and reasonable
cause the same can be proceeded exparte to avoid
delay in holding it. Moreover, nothing has been
brought on record to establish that during the course of
the enquiry applicant had ever requested the
respondents to keep the enquiry in abeyance or
informed through medical record regarding his server
illness. It is only after the punishment of dismissal has
been imposed upon him he has annexed all those
medical record which he had failed to produce in the
enquiry. Respondents have been deprived of an
opportunity to ascertain the genuineness of this record
as the same has not been tendered and as such the
same could not be scrutinized in the second medical
examination. Despite aware of the proceedings and
service of the notices applicant failed to turn up either
before the disciplinary authority or the enquiry
officer."
5. This Court is of the opinion that the conduct of the petitioner, in
not notifying the nature of his illness and asking for leave of absence
and rather relying upon certain medical records after becoming aware
of the dismissal order (made in 1993) by approaching the Tribunal 8
years later in 2001, disentitles him to the relief claimed.
6. The petitioner nowhere states the circumstances which led to
the initiation of the criminal proceedings and the trial, which
ultimately resulted in his acquittal in 1992. If, indeed, that is the
position - as it appears to be from the record, there is a serious
discrepancy in regard to his assertion of his inability to attend his
duties for a couple of years, when, he did face criminal proceedings
and defended himself. Furthermore, the entire period of 8 years is
sought to be explained by reliance on copies of some out-patient
tickets issued by doctors. Neither the clinics nor the place where they
are located, are discernible. Having regard to all these, the Court is of
the opinion that the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be faulted
and accordingly petition is dismissed along with pending
application(s).
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
JULY 04, 2018
nn
