JAI NARAIN Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Shri Jai Narain joined Delhi Police as Constable on February 21, 1955. He was promoted to the post of Head Constable on March 19, 1962. He was reverted with effect from June 5, 1971. His name was removed from the promotion list from the same date. While functioning as Head Constable a charge for gross misconduct and contravention of the Conduct Rules was framed against him. After due inquiry that charge was found to have been proved. The disciplinary authority after agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer directed forfeiture .of one year's approved service which entailed in reduction, of the petitioner's pay from Rs. 128 to Rs. 115. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the forfeiture of the approved service, reversion from the post of Head Constable to' the substantive. rank of .Constable and removal of his name from the promotion list 'C' with effect from June 5, 1971.

(2.) At the outsat I may notice that the petitioner sought premature retirement during the pendency of the writ petition. it is stated at the Bar that he retired in November, 1970 as a Constable. The petition has been pressed as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the impugned orders being. illegal and improper are liable to be set aside which would result in the petitioner getting enhanced pension apart from seme other monetary" benefits. I may at this stage quote the charge which was framed by the Inquiry Officer' against the petitioner:

(3.) The first submission of Mr. Kathuria in support 'of his contention that the iaquiry held against the petitioner was bad was that the Msmorandum dated June 28, 1970 proposing to hold departmental inquiry against the petitioner required him to be present before the Inquiry .Officer On that very date at 10 a.m. Therefore, it Is urged that he had 'no time to prepare his defence and was taken unawares. From the official record. produced by the respondent it appears that the inquiry was adjourned to July 4,1970 on which date the petitioner bought time to reply to the allegations. The time was granted. There after on the adjoarned hearing the proceedings commenced In this view of the .matter it cannot be. said that the petitioner was taken unawares and he had not enough time: to prepare his defence.