RAMESH KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the Writ Petition is to the order dated April 27, 2012 passed in O.A. No. 1295/2012, and to the order dated December 10, 2012 disposing of R.A. No. 326/2012 and M.A. No. 3333/2012 in O.A. No. 1295/2012. The Tribunal has dismissed O.A. No. 1295/2012 filed by the petitioner and the application seeking review of the order dated April 27, 2012. The brief facts necessary to understand the issue in question are that while working as an Inspector (Investigation), P.S. Lajpat Nagar (South District), New Delhi, the petitioner was suspended on August 07, 2007 and thereafter departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The summary of allegations issued to the petitioner inter alia were that he had helped a person accused in FIR No. 705/2007 namely Bda Singh for offences punishable under Section 448/427/420/468/471/506/34 IPC, P.S. Lajpat Nagar, to grab the property No. K -49, Lajpat Nagar -III, New Delhi, belonging to one Sh. Naveen Kumar Bhatia. The proceedings culminated in a punishment order dated September 28, 2010 whereby the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of forfeiture of three years approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in pay. The appeal filed against the order dated September 28, 2010 was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated March 04, 2011. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed O.A. No. 1536/2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. In so far as the challenge of the petitioner on merit of the findings in the departmental enquiry is concerned, the Tribunal held as under:

(2.) IN so far as the aspect of punishment is concerned, the Tribunal was of the view that what has been proved against the petitioner was that he was having conversation with Bala Singh on 79 plus 4 occasions for about a period of one month prior to registration of the FIR and a few days thereafter. The Tribunal also holds that the petitioner has not proved that he had any family or friendly relations with Bala Singh nor he has been able to prove that Bala Singh was a police informer and therefore talking to him frequently would not auger well for a police officer. After reaching such conclusion, the Tribunal was of the view that the punishment which has been imposed on the petitioner is dis -proportionate. Setting aside the orders challenged the Tribunal directed the disciplinary authority to reconsider if punishment less than the one already imposed would meet the ends of justice.

(3.) THE Tribunal went into the legality of the revised punishment awarded to the petitioner and found that the same cannot be viewed as outrages and disproportionate by applying the Wednesbury principles. The Tribunal concluded that the disciplinary authority has applied its mind. It also held that all issues pertaining to the finding of guilt raised by the petitioner stood decided by the Tribunal, where O.A. No. 1536/2011 was decided and thus could not be re -agitated.