GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Government of NCT of Delhi, has impugned the order dated 30th November, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 776 of 2009, titled as 'Vinod Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.' allowing the original application filed by the respondent, and set aside the show cause notice dated 13th October, 2006 and order of Censure dated 20th September, 2007, and the Appellate Order dated 30th November, 2008 passed against the respondent.

(2.) IT appears that a complaint was made by Smt. Bhagya Sharma that a factory owner and his supervisor had misbehaved with her. The factory owner had filed a counter complaint against her that she and her husband had been making false allegations and threatening them with getting their factory closed down on the allegations that the factory could not be run in the residential area and that the factory could not operate the generator during electricity power shedding and extorting money from them. On account of the cross complaints filed by the parties, the local police had prepared a Kalandra under Section 107 & 150 Criminal Procedure of Code against both the parties. This action was resisted by the complaint of Smt. Bhagya Sharma on the ground that Kalandra could be only against factory owner and not against her as she was a victim, and in the circumstance, the attitude of the concerned ASI and SHO/respondent was totally unjustified.

(3.) THE order of censure imposed upon the respondent was challenged before the Tribunal contending inter alia that though the censure is a minor punishment, however, the same could be taken into account while dealing with the cases of the Police Officer in the matter of their promotion. It was also contended that the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority were bereft of any reason as the pleas and contentions of the respondent were not considered. It was contended that since the complaints were filed by both the parties against each other, therefore, the Assistant Sub Inspector was justified in issuing Kalandra under Section 107 & 150 Cr.P.C. and since no action was proposed against the ASI who had issued the Kalandra, any action against the respondent was unsustainable. The respondent contended that in view of the cross complaints, it could not be held that only one of the party was a victim in the facts and circumstances of the case.