Ex. Const. Krishan Kumar v. UOI & Ors.

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 2018:DHC:3886-DB 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:-

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