DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Vs. JORAWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,seeks to challenge the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal(Principal Bench), Delhi, (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 22/01/1999 in O.A.No. 901 of 1995, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application andquashed the order dated 29/04/1993, passed by the Deputy Commissioner ofPolice, 9t Bri. DAV, New Delhi, and directed reinstatement of respondent No. 1 inservice. However, the Tribunal did not deem it fit to grant backwages for the periodthe petitioner was out of job, but directed that this period should not be treated asbreak in service for other purposes.

(2.) The facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 was working as Constable inDelhi Police prior to his dismissal from service by order dated 29/04/1993,passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, 9th Bn. DAV, New Delhi. The chargeagainst respondent No. 1 was that he absented himself unauthorisedly on severaloccasions and was a habitual absentee. Since respondent No... 1 pleaded guilty tothe charge, no witnesses were examined, the Enquiry Officer held respondent No. 1guilty of the charge framed against him. The disciplinary authority, in its order dated 29/04/1993, while dismissing respondent No. 1, was pleaded to treat the periodof absence as 'leave without pay.' Aggrieved of the order of dismissal, respondentNo. 1 challenged the same before the Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 901of 1995. It was the case of respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal that the disciplinaryauthority, while passing the order of dismissal, had regularised the period of absenceby treating the period as "leave without pay", therefore, had nullified its earlier ordersof dismissal.

(3.) The petitioner's contention before the Tribunal was that the disciplinary authorityintended to regularise the period of absence only by way of maintaining correctrecord of service.