EX CONST KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. UOI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner questions an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter "CAT") rejecting his application on 23.10.2002.

(2.) The petitioner worked at the relevant time as a constable with the Delhi Police; he was initially recruited to that position in 1987. Apparently, he was involved in a criminal case i.e. FIR No.79 dated 006.1992 under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act at PS Beri District Rohtak Haryana. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner for continued and unauthorised absence. In the proceedings before the CAT, the departmental inquiry and the consequential order of his dismissal, were challenged as illegal on the ground firstly, that such proceedings were ex-parte and had led to failure of principles of natural justice; the second argument was that the petitioner's explanation for the absence was not only plausible but ought to have been accepted since he was unable to report to duties and function in the post on account of the medical ailment. The CAT however rejected both arguments noticing that the departmental inquiry had been completed in 1993 and that the petitioner had also approached it after a considerable delay.

(3.) It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the CAT fell into error in overlooking that for a considerable period i.e. 8 to 9 years the medical disability of serious heart ailment prevented him from approaching the Court. It is further submitted that atleast the petitioner ought to have been served with a copy of the charge-sheet and given full opportunity to defend himself. In this regard it is pointed out that the petitioner had in fact reported his illness from the place where he was hospitalised and this ought to have been taken into consideration. Learned counsel also relied upon copies of the medical records to say that even as late as in 1999 the petitioner suffered from blockage of the arteries which establishes that his case of being unable to report for duties, was justified. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the respondent-authorities ought to have taken note of the absence and genuine reasons and imposed a proportionate penalty instead of the severe or extreme penalty of the dismissal.