CONST. RAM CHANDER Vs. THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, I.P. ESTATE, M.S.O. BUIDING, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Constable Rama Chander, the applicant herein, working in Delhi Police is aggrieved by the Order dated 02.02.2010 (page -10) whereby his name has been removed from the Select List of Doubtful Integrity with effect from 14.11.2009 i.e. after completion of three years of doubtful integrity period and the Order dated 21.12.2010 by which his representation was rejected. Being aggrieved, he has approached this Tribunal in the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to quash and set aside the said impugned order dated 02.02.2010 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The applicant along with three others (Constable Naresh Kumar, Constable Rajbir Singh and Constable Sunil Kumar) filed the OA No.2152/2007 challenging the order dated 01.6.2007 wherein the penalty of forfeiture of three years approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in their pay. While disposing of the said OA on 08.12.2009. The Tribunal passed the order in following terms: - 7 We had dispassionately weighed the arguments that have been raised by the applicants as well as respondents. The statements of the drivers on which heavy reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer, of course, cannot be taken into account at least so far as the incriminating part might be concerned. But however, it cannot be disputed that they had given statements on the night. The signature in the document at least show that the claim of PW -I that the truck drivers had identified the applicants in fact goes to a long way against them and this fact has also not been subjected to any dispute as there is no cross examination on such account given. But, however, there is hardly any evidence to indicate that there was demanding and acceptance of illegal gratification. There can be strong amount of suspicion, in the manner in which the applicants had behaved themselves on the date of incident but clinching evidence sufficient to impose a major penalty is not there. Therefore, we quash the impugned orders, subject to the observations recorded herein below. 8. Taking into account the totality of the facts of the case, we however, maintain that part of the orders which prescribe that the period of suspension which the applicants had under gone is not to be treated as period spent on duty. By their conduct they have contributed to a situation where the tracks admittedly had been given across to areas which should not have been in their normal route. The period of suspension is not to operate as break in their service. In compliance of the above orders and directions of the Tribunal, the second respondent passed his order dated 12.3.2010 (page 15). As a follow up measure, the applicant represented on 30.6.2010 (page -16) to the concerned authorities to remove his name from the Secret List of Doubtful Integrity right from the date of its inception as he stood exonerated but the same was rejected in a non -speaking order dated 18.6.2010 (page -13) and 01.09.2010 (page -14). Feeling aggrieved by those two rejection letters, he approached the Tribunal in OA No.3500/2010 which was disposed of on 21.10.2010 (Annexure -A12) at the admission stage by quashing the order dated 01.09.2010 with a direction to the respondents to look into his representation dated 30.6.2010 and treat the OA as his supplementary representation and keeping in view the factual position of the case and the Standing Order No.265 /2009 and decide within a period of six weeks. Pursuant to the above directions, the 3rd respondent vide his letter dated 21.12.2010 (Annexure -A2) on consideration of his representation/appeal rejected the same. Thus, the applicant is before the Tribunal in the instant OA.

(3.) We heard Shri Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant who would submit that the applicant having been exonerated of all charges on the basis of which his name was put in the Secret List of Doubtful Integrity, as per the S.O. No.265/2009, his name could not have been kept in the said list upto 13.11.2009. He, further contends that the applicant is not facing any criminal or departmental proceedings and as such his name cannot be kept in the said Secret List. It is further argued that though the names of his three co -delinquents have been removed from the Secret List of Doubtful Integrity only from the date of completion, but in case of Constable Jai Bhagwan, a co -delinquent in the departmental enquiry and exonerated of the charges approached the Tribunal in OA No.2061/2008 and his name was deleted from the Secret List of Doubtful Integrity by the respondents right from the date of inception. Same treatment needs to be extended to the applicant. He, therefore, urges to allow the OA by quashing both the impugned orders.