RAM KISHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellants, while working as constable under the charge of Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central District, New Delhi, was charged with two-fold grave misconduct:(i) while he was in charge of the sub-jail (naib Court) he facilitated one Puran, s/o. Rama, undertrial prisoner, to drink alcohol before being taken to the Court; and (ii) he had abused the superior Officer and created an ugly scene in their presence. The inquiry officer in his report dated July 20, 1985 found that the second charge was partly proved and the first charge had not been proved. The disciplinary authority, viz., Additional Deputy Commissioner, disagreeing with the conclusions reached by the inquiry officer, issued a show cause notice on August 16, 1985 as to why both the charges should not be taken to have been proved. The appellant submitted his explanation and thereon by order dated September 6, 1986, the Additional Deputy Commissioner dismissed him from service. After unsuccessful appeal and revision, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in May, 1986. The Tribunal in its order dated September 17, 1990 dismissed the O.A. Thus this appeal by special leave.

(3.) Mr. Shyam Babu, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised three-fold contention. First, that the Additional Deputy Commissioner is not the Deputy Commissioner in charge of the District and, therefore, he was not competent to impose the punishment on the appellant. It is next contended that the disciplinary authority had not given any reason in the show cause notice to disagree with the conclusions reached by the inquiry officer and that, therefore, the findings based on that show cause notice are bad in law. Lastly, it is contended that even on proved facts the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged misconduct.