NAHAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal whereby the appellant challenges judgment of the learned Single Judge who had dismissed the appellant's writ petition which bad sought to quash the order dated 21st January, 1983 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Delhi setting aside the departmental enquiry against the appellant and directing the abinitio initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant.

(2.) . On an enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Branch it bad been found that Constable Nahar Singh bad appeared for 'A' list test on May 12, 1978 for selection to lower school course but could not succeed as per the result declared on February 8, 1979. Constable NaharSingh submitted an application on March 31, 1979 to the Additional Commissioner of Police (A), through proper channel requesting that he was given 33 marks for the service record, whereas he deserved for 39 marks as he bad no major or minor punishment to his credit. On examination of his Fauji Misial and character roll by the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central District, Delhi received from West District Office, it was noticed that all the punishment papers appended in the Pauji Missal had been detached. The constable bad four warnings and bad also been given punishment Drill four times. The index form had also been changed and repaged. Pages 23 to 28 and 37 to 40 missing. Page II containing entry of 15 days punishment Drill in the character roll had been found torn. Constable Nahar Singh was working as main diarist in the West District Office during this period whereas Constable Daya Chand was posted as Fauji Missal Clerk There is a suspicion that the above misconduct has been done by them jointly. With these averments the Disciplinary Authority by an, order dated January 7, 1980 directed under Section 21 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, that- the departmental enquiry against the petitioner and Constable Daya Chand be initiated .and conducted after observing all usual formalities. In pursuance of this order, summary of allegaticns were served on the petitioner on May 2, 1981. These are :

(3.) . When the findings of the Enquiry Officer were submitted to the Disciplinary Authority, it was found that while issuing of the summary of allegations to the appellant, there was failure to incorporate the details of allegations, ordered vide office order dated January 7, 1980 established by vigilance enquiry. It was also found that the Enquiry Officer had not correctly framed the charge against the appellant. A proposal was made to withdraw the charge sheet and to order de novo proceedings from the stage of the charge. The Disciplinary Authority by order dated November 18, 1982 directed initiation of denovo departmental proceedings against the appellant from the date of the charge.