GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. KULDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A prolix decision spanning 25 pages out of which nearly half consists of cut, copy and paste has obviously missed the basic point which should have been considered by the Tribunal.

(2.) THE relevant facts would be that the respondent was appointed as a Constable in Delhi Police in the year 1975 and earned promotion in the year 1982 to the post of Head Constable and therefrom to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector in the year 1982. As per his seniority and subject to being found fit to be promoted as a Sub Inspector the respondent would have earned promotion to the post of Sub Inspector on December 11, 2003 when a person immediately junior to him earned said promotion. The respondent was not promoted because recommendations of the DPC pertaining to him were kept in a sealed cover on account of petitioner facing a disciplinary proceeding which ultimately culminated in a penalty of forfeiture of two years approved service being inflicted. Needless to state, on account of the penalty levied and since the misdemeanour for which the penalty was levied pertained to the appraisal period, the department did not bother to even open the sealed cover containing the recommendation pertaining to the respondent. The sealed cover had ultimately to be opened because OA No.3044/2004 filed by the respondent challenging the penalty and the report of the Inquiry Officer on the ground of there being no evidence to sustain the indictment was allowed on November 13, 2006, with a direction that all consequential benefits shall flow.

(3.) VIDE impugned order dated January 21, 2013 the Tribunal has held that since the respondent was ultimately exonerated of the charge against him the department had to not only promote him from the date when persons junior to him was promoted but additionally pay him back wages.