VINAY KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders dated 21.08.2013 and 02.09.2014 passed in O.A. No. 2664/2012 and R.A. No. 155/2013 respectively, by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had joined Delhi Police as Constable (Dog Handler) on 25.04.1989 and is still continuing in service. Being a Dog Handler, he was required to undergo training and as per order dated 19.11.2009, 45 Constables (Dog Handlers) were detained for training and they were directed to report to I/C, Dog Squad on 23.11.2009. The petitioner had proceeded on ten days casual leave w.e.f. 30.11.2009 and this leave was duly sanctioned by the Competent Authority. As per the petitioner, after availing the said ten days leave period, he sought to join his duties on 14.12.2009 but was not permitted to. He had submitted an application dated 15.12.2009 to the respondent requesting that he may be allowed to join his duties anywhere in any Unit but with no avail. Vide order dated 17.12.2009, the petitioner was placed under suspension with retrospective effect from 12.12.2009. Petitioner by his letter dated 19.12.2009 sought revocation of his suspension order. The said suspension order was later revoked by the respondent vide order dated 07.04.2010 and the petitioner was reinstated back in service with immediate effect, without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. Vide order dated 25.04.2010 the respondent had initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, taking a view that the said absenteeism of the petitioner amounted to gross misconduct and dereliction in discharge of official duties attracting Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. The following charges were framed against the petitioner and one Constable Sudhir Sharma: -

(3.) CHALLENGING the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority the petitioner filed O.A. No. 2664/2012 before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal vide order dated 21.08.2013 dismissed the Original Application preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner sought review of the said order by filing R.A. No. 155/2013 but the same was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 02.09.2014. The petitioner in the instant petition has now assailed the said two orders passed by the learned Tribunal.