CRL.M.C./1516/2020 of SHISHU PAL Vs GOVT. OF NCTD THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+W.P.(C) 1516/2020SHISHU PAL

..... PetitionerThrough:Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate.versus

GOVT. OF NCTD THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE& ANR...... Respondents

..... RespondentsThrough:Mrs.AvnishAhlawat,StandingCounsel for GNCTD with Mr. NiteshKumar Singh, Advocate.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANIO R R%17.02.2020

C.M. No.5287/2020 (exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) No.1516/2020

The present petition is directed against the order dated28.08.2018passedbytheCentralAdministrativeTribunal('Tribunal'). The essential grievance of the petitioner is that althoughall submissions and grounds raised by him have been noted in paras 5and 6 of the impugned order, no finding has been given by theTribunal on the issues so raised.

Notice to show cause as to why petition be not admitted.

Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the respondentsaccepts notice.

With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is set-down forfinal hearing and disposal at the admission stage itself.

Paras 5 and 6 of the order of the Tribunal read as under:-

"5. The gist of the arguments of Mr. Sachin Chauhan,learned counsel for applicant is as under:-

a) It was standard practice followed in the Outer District thatonly after the receipt of the bills, the stationery itemssupplied by the suppliers were being entered into the mainregister. In this regard, he has referred to the deposition ofMr. Rajender Singh (PW-3), who was then posted in theGeneralBranch,OuterDistrict,who,inhiscrossexamination, has stated that no entry could be made in theregister without the receipt of the bills and articles, but theentry could be made in separate register to remember andto handover the same to the successor on transfer.

b) Annexure A-20 is kachha noting in respect of certainmaterials received on 25.04.2008, which could not beentered in the register, as the bills of these items had notbeen received from the suppliers.

c) The Outer District was created recently then and theprocurement procedures were not laid down.

d) The applicant could not cross examine Lokesh Kumar(PW-5), who was then working in the office of stationerysupplier, M/s. Vijay Stationery Mart No.18 No. Palika PalaceAnnexe, Panchkuian Road, New Delhi, as he was stillawaiting response to his representation dated 03.09.2009addressedtoEO,whereinhehadstatedthatthedepartmental enquiry (DE) proceedings may be kept inabeyance till his representation dated 20.07.2009 to thedisciplinary authority, seeking cancellation / dropping of DE

proceedings on certain technical grounds, is disposed of byit.

e) The applicant did not participate in the DE proceedingsinitially for some dates, for which Annexure A-14 show causenotice dated 22.09.2009 was issued, to which he replied videhis Annexure A-18 letter. However, the disciplinary authorityimposed the penalty of "censure" on the applicant for thecharge of not attending the DE proceedings on some dates.This action of the disciplinary authority was highly illegaland has been challenged by the applicant in separate O.A.before this Tribunal.

6. During the course of his arguments, Mr. Chauhan raisedcertain law points. He stated that in terms of Government ofIndia instruction No.9 under Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules,1965, reasons for cancellation of original charge sheet arerequired to be mentioned, whereas in Annexure A-1 orderdated 19.06.2009, no reason is mentioned with regard towithdrawal of Annexure A-13 order dated 03.03.2009, exceptcryptically mentioning that the order has been withdrawn onadministrative grounds without prejudice to the action to betaken against the applicant later on. He submitted thatAnnexure A-1 order is in contravention with the saidinstructions of Government of India."

Submissions of counsel for the respondents are also noted in

para 11, which we reproduce below:-

"11. Per contra, Mrs. Sumedha Sharma, learned counsel forrespondents submitted that the Annexure A-13 order dated03.03.2009 was withdrawn by the respondents for technicalreason. She said that in terms of Rule 15 (2) of Delhi Police(Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, prior approval of JointCommissioner of Police was required to be obtained beforeinitiating the DE proceedings against the applicant. SinceAnnexure A-13 order was issued without such approval, therespondents considered it prudent to withdraw it and

accordingly Annexure A-1 order dated 19.06.2009 wasissued, in which it is clearly mentioned that the order dated03.03.2009wasbeingwithdrawnonadministrativegrounds."

Thereafter in paras 13 to 17, the Tribunal has rendered itsobservations, which we are reproducing below:-

"13. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel forthe parties and perused the pleadings.

14. The scope of judicial review in the matter of DEproceedings is highly limited. Judicial review is normallyresorted to only in following circumstances:

(a) Principles of natural justice have not been followed in theconduct of DE proceedings,

(b)Incompetentauthoritieshaveissuedthechargememorandum and passed the penalty orders,

(c) The penalty orders have been passed in violation of relevantlaws/rules; and

(d) The punishment inflicted is disproportionate to the offencecommitted.

15. The above principles have been enshrined in the followingjudgments of Hon‟ble Supreme Court:

(i) Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran,(2015) 2 SCC 610

(ii) Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India & others, (1987) 4 SCC611; and

(iii) Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & others, JT1998 (8) SC 603.

16. In the instant case, we notice that shortfall in the stock ofstationery items procured has been fully established during thecourse of enquiry. The EO, after going through the documentsand assessing the evidences of the witnesses, has come to theconclusion that the charge against the applicant has beenproved. We also notice that the enquiry has been conducted asper the prescribed procedures and principles of natural justicehave been observed at every stage. The punishment imposed onthe applicant is not at all disproportionate to the charge provedagainst him.

17. In the conspectus, we do not find any merit in this O.A. andaccordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs."

complete reading of the paras which we have reproducedabove would show that, no doubt grounds urged by the petitionerwere recorded as was the response given by the counsel for therespondents; however the Tribunal does not give its reasoning orfinding on any aspect, except that it appears to accept the conclusionsof the Enquiry Officer.

Resultantly, we set-aside the impugned order and remand thematter to the Tribunal for fresh hearing.

Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 12[th]March 2020.

Petition is disposed of in terms of aforesaid observations.

G.S.SISTANI, J

FEBRUARY 17, 2020Ne

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J