GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others have challenged the order dated 9th December, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 1312/2009 titled as Mohinder Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. allowing the petition of respondent No. 1 holding that there is no justification to initiate the departmental proceedings against respondent No. 1 after 25 years, after 1984 riots especially as the respondent No. 1 had rather been awarded two promotions in the meanwhile.

(2.) By order dated 29th April, 2009, a regular departmental inquiry was proposed against the respondent No. 1 on the ground that while posted at PS Sriniwaspuri, he failed to exercise effective control in the area where violence had started after the of assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi in October/November, 1984 riots. The allegation of lack of effective control by respondent No. 1 is based on the affidavits filed by Sardar Santokh Singh dated 9th September, 1985 before Justice Ranga Nath Mishra, Inquiry Commission and the affidavit dated 25th July, 1987 of Sh. Gurdayal Singh which was attested by a notary public which has an apparent extrapolation in respect to name of the respondent no.1.

(3.) Along with the order dated 29th April, 2009, alleging that the respondent No. 1 is guilty of gross negligence and dereliction of duty with malafide intention, and conducting himself in a manner unbecoming of government servant and violation of provisions of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, the name of three witnesses were cited which were Sardar Santokh Singh, Sardar Gurdayal Singh, deponents of two affidavit and MHC (Srinivaspuri) to prove the FIR No. 369/1984. The Tribunal while setting aside the order dated 29th April, 2009 ordering departmental inquiry against the respondent No. 1 noted that respondent No. 1 has been awarded two promotions since 1984 and no satisfactory rather no explanation has been given for delay of 25 years. The respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal denied the imputations made against him. The basis of ordering departmental inquiry against the respondent No. 1 is the affidavit of Sh. Santokh Singh, who was 65 years on 9th September, 1985 when the alleged affidavit was given by him before Justice Ranga Nath Mishra, Enquiry Commission. Sh. Santokh Singh in his affidavit had only deposed about the presence of respondent No. 1 along with the DCP of the area and SHO Ishwar Singh and Ved Prakash, Head Constable. The learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to disclose as to what action has been taken against the SHO Ishwar Singh and other constable Ved Prakash. This is not disputed that the petitioners have not got it ascertained about Sh. Santokh Singh alleged witness, who was 65 years in 1985 as to whether he is alive or not. The affidavit which is only a copy obtained from the Commission cannot be relied on even under Rule 16 (iii) of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 on the basis of allegations made on behalf of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners is also unable to give any justifiable reason for not recording the statement of the said witness even for preliminary investigation for the past 25 years for initiating the departmental proceedings now.