Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)2196/2007
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Petitioner
Through: Mr.Naushad Ahmed Khan,ASC with Mr.Astha Nigam,Adv.
W.P.(C)2196/2007
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Petitioner
Through: Mr.Naushad Ahmed Khan,ASC with Mr.Astha Nigam,Adv.
VERSUS
PREETPAL SINGH
Through:
Through:
W.P.(C)2216/2007
Respondent Mr.Anil Singal,Adv.along with respondent.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Petitioner
Through: Mr.Naushad Ahmed Khan,ASC with Mr.Astha Nigam,Adv.
Respondent Mr.Anil Singal,Adv.along with respondent.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Petitioner
Through: Mr.Naushad Ahmed Khan,ASC with Mr.Astha Nigam,Adv.
VERSUS
CHATTARPAL SINGH Respondent
Through: Mr.Anil Singal,Adv.along with respondent.
Through: Mr.Anil Singal,Adv.along with respondent.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI
09.02.2016 Thesetwo writ petitions by the Commissioner ofPolice impugn a common order dated 6^*^ November, 2006 passed in OA NO. 442/2005 by the Central Administrative Tribunal in favour of Head
Constable Preet Pal Singh and OA No.237/2005 passed in favour of
Constable Chattar Pal.
2016:DHC:9246-DB During the course of hearing our attention was drawn to the enquiry report dated 26.4.2004,the order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority dated 16.8.2004 and the order passed by the Appellate
Authority dated 16.11.2004.
Counsel for the Commissioner ofPolice has submitted that the
Tribunal in the impugned order, after referring to the order of the
Appellate Authority; has failed to notice that the Appellate Authority had taken a lenient view to reduce the penalty/punishment of dismissal from service, to forfeiture ofthree years approved service permanently entailing reduction in their pay from Rs.4,305/- to
Rs.4,050/- per month in the case ofHead Constable Preet Pal Singh and Rs.3,965/-. to Rs.3,710/- in the case of Chattar Pal Singh. He submits that the order of the Appellate Authority may not be very lucid but it could be incorrect and erroneousto hold thatthe Appellate
Authority had overturned the finding recorded in the enquiry report.
The charge stands proved. Thus,the order ofthe Tribunal completely exonerating the respondents is contrary to law and should be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the
Appellate Authority had taken into consideration various aspects and has specifically drawn our attention to the observations referring to the peculiar circumstances faced by the two respondents on account ofprecarious financial condition and domestic problem etc.
After hearing counsel for the parties, we were inclined to pass an order of remit for fresh adjudication by the Tribunal. However, counsel for the respondents has stated that he has spoken in detail to the respondents who are also present in the Court today and has
> instruction to state that they would not like to press their original applications and would accept the order ofpenalty as imposed by the th
Appellate Authority. The impugned order dated 6 November,2006 may be set aside.
The statement made by counsel for the respondents in the presence ofthe respondents,are taken on record. Accordingly,we set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 6^*^ November, 2006;the effectthereofwould be thatthe order ofpenalty imposed by the Appellate Authority dated 16'*^ November,2004 would be treated as having attained finality. Necessary consequences will follow.
The writ petitions are,accordingly,disposed off.
SANJIV IfflANNA,J NAJipi WAZIRI,J FEBRUARY 09,2016/ak
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI
09.02.2016 Thesetwo writ petitions by the Commissioner ofPolice impugn a common order dated 6^*^ November, 2006 passed in OA NO. 442/2005 by the Central Administrative Tribunal in favour of Head
Constable Preet Pal Singh and OA No.237/2005 passed in favour of
Constable Chattar Pal.
2016:DHC:9246-DB During the course of hearing our attention was drawn to the enquiry report dated 26.4.2004,the order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority dated 16.8.2004 and the order passed by the Appellate
Authority dated 16.11.2004.
Counsel for the Commissioner ofPolice has submitted that the
Tribunal in the impugned order, after referring to the order of the
Appellate Authority; has failed to notice that the Appellate Authority had taken a lenient view to reduce the penalty/punishment of dismissal from service, to forfeiture ofthree years approved service permanently entailing reduction in their pay from Rs.4,305/- to
Rs.4,050/- per month in the case ofHead Constable Preet Pal Singh and Rs.3,965/-. to Rs.3,710/- in the case of Chattar Pal Singh. He submits that the order of the Appellate Authority may not be very lucid but it could be incorrect and erroneousto hold thatthe Appellate
Authority had overturned the finding recorded in the enquiry report.
The charge stands proved. Thus,the order ofthe Tribunal completely exonerating the respondents is contrary to law and should be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the
Appellate Authority had taken into consideration various aspects and has specifically drawn our attention to the observations referring to the peculiar circumstances faced by the two respondents on account ofprecarious financial condition and domestic problem etc.
After hearing counsel for the parties, we were inclined to pass an order of remit for fresh adjudication by the Tribunal. However, counsel for the respondents has stated that he has spoken in detail to the respondents who are also present in the Court today and has
> instruction to state that they would not like to press their original applications and would accept the order ofpenalty as imposed by the th
Appellate Authority. The impugned order dated 6 November,2006 may be set aside.
The statement made by counsel for the respondents in the presence ofthe respondents,are taken on record. Accordingly,we set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 6^*^ November, 2006;the effectthereofwould be thatthe order ofpenalty imposed by the Appellate Authority dated 16'*^ November,2004 would be treated as having attained finality. Necessary consequences will follow.
The writ petitions are,accordingly,disposed off.
SANJIV IfflANNA,J NAJipi WAZIRI,J FEBRUARY 09,2016/ak
JUDGMENT