BADRUDDIN Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) <DJG>MOOL CHAND GARG, J.</DJG> Badruddin, Sub Inspector (Exe.) in Delhi Police, the petitioner before us filed O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 being O.A.No.2640/2008 for setting aside the order dated 29.05.2008 vide which his case for admission of his name to Promotion List F. (Exe.) has been rejected. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 10.12.2008 has not found merit in the Original Application. The relevant observations made by the Tribunal in this regard in para 10 & 11 of the order are reproduced for the sake of reference: 10. Perusal of the order, reproduced above, would manifest that the applicant has been overlooked in the matter of promotion for variety of reasons. His service record during preceding ten years was examined and it was found that he had continued punishments to his credit. His name also existed in the secret list of doubtful integrity. It has also been mentioned in the earlier part of the order that service record of the applicant is indifferent. In the first censure against the applicant dated 30.05.2003, the applicant has been held to be grossly negligent. In the censure order dated 09.07.2003, the allegation against the applicant, inter alia, was of demanding Rs. 20,000/- from a person to set him free. Whereas three censures may not touch upon corruption or moral turpitude, but the two, as mentioned above, would show that the allegations against the applicant were of corruption also, which would also reflect moral turpitude. One censure, in any case, is with regard to corruption. That apart, as referred to above, sequel to departmental enquiry the applicant was punished on the charge of accepting bribe on the basis of which, his name was also brought on the secret list of doubtful integrity. Even though, the said order might have been set aside by this Tribunal in the OA filed by him, it cannot be forgotten that the order setting aside the order of punishment was on a technical flaw in conduct of proceedings and, therefore, the respondents had been given liberty to proceed against him. These proceedings, it is admitted during the course of arguments, are still pending. The order of punishment as such may not stand, but the allegations subject matter of enquiry do stand till such time the applicant may not be exonerated. 11. In the circumstances fully detailed above, we do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders declining promotion to the applicant at this stage.

(2.) Briefly stating the facts of this case are that besides suffering punishment of four censures, SI Badruddin was again proceeded departmentally for a major penalty which resulted in awarding a punishment of withholding of next increment temporarily for a period of one year, vide orders dated 23.06.2005 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police (East District), Delhi. This punishment was imposed upon the petitioner after holding a departmental inquiry. By the same order, period of suspension was decided as not spent on duty for all intents and purposes. On 15.09.2005, Additional Commissioner of Police, Delhi brought the name of the applicant on secret list of persons of doubtful integrity w.e.f. 23.06.2005 for a period of three years on the basis of allegation, as mentioned below: While posted at P.S. Mandawali and acting as a special staff of P.S. Mandawali went at the shop of Mohd. Shahid r/o H. No. 1216, Gali No. 48, Jafrabad, Delhi along with two informers Guddu & Pappu. They brought Mohd. Shahid and his employee Banwari Lal at P.S. Mandwali on 11.01.2003 and had beaten them mercicessly. They took Rs. 10,000/- as a bribe and relieved them in midnight of 12.01.2003.

(3.) The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi against the aforesaid order which was rejected vide order dated 30.01.2006. Being aggrieved of the orders dated 23.06.2005, 15.09.2005 and 30.01.2006 which was rejected vide order dated 30.01.2006, the petitioner filed OA No. 1826/2006 before Central Administrative Tribunal, which was partly allowed on 25.09.2007. Operative part of the order reads thus: Since admittedly no prior approval was obtained as required by Rule 15(2) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 the order of punishment dated 23.06.2005 and appellate order dated 30.01.2006 are quashed and set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to start the proceedings from the stage of obtaining prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police.