SHRI JITENDER SINGH S/O SHRI HARI SINGH Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH (THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has filed the present application feeling aggrieved of his continued suspension from 21.03.2003. Earlier he had also filed OA -1386/2008 on this ground which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide its order dated 09.07.2008 with the direction to the Respondent No. 2 to consider applicant's representation and pass reasoned and speaking order thereon within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In compliance thereof, the respondents have passed order dated 29.09.2008 rejecting the applicant's representation. The present application is directed against the said rejection of representation as well as the order of suspension dated 21.03.2003 (Annexure -II) and rejection of his earlier representation vide respondents' communication dated 01.11.2007 (Annexure -III) whereby the applicant was informed that he had to wait till chargers were framed. The applicant also prays for issue of directions to the respondents to reinstate him with all consequential benefits including arrears.

(2.) THE applicant is a Constable in Delhi Police and at the time of passing of impugned order, he was posted at PS Inderpuri. The impugned order was passed in view of his arrest and involvement in a criminal case FIR No. 6/2003, under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 120 -B IPC PS Special Cell (SB), Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. The said case was registered on the complaint of one Shri Pragat Singh S/o Shri Ranjit Singh alleging therein that one Dr. Sanjay Kumar Bansal cheated rupees five lacs on the pretext of sending him to USA for job along with preparation of passport. The said Dr. Bansal got prepared passport for the complainant Pragat Singh from RPO, Delhi in fake address of WZ -883/1, Narina Village, Delhi where the complainant had never resided. Dr. Bansal neither arranged visa for the complainant nor sent him to USA for job. The cheque given by Dr. Bansal to the complainant was dishonored by the Bank. It is alleged that the applicant herein gave witnesses to the false addresses for the passport of complainant Pragat Singh and certain other persons. On the basis of the witnesses given by the applicant, ASI Om Prakash had submitted his verification report and accordingly, the passport were issued to all of them by R.P.O. Delhi. Both ASI Om Prakash and Jitender Singh the applicant were suspended in these circumstances. However, the suspension of ASI Om Prakash was revoked vide order dated 02.11.2006 and and he was reinstated in service. The applicant Jitender Singh also filed representation for revocation of his suspension wherein he has, inter alia, taken a plea that ASI Om Prakash, who was also placed under suspension in the same case, was reinstated in service from his suspension. This plea was, however, not accepted by the respondents for the reason that ASI Om Prakash, who was placed under suspension, was reinstated by a different Disciplinary Authority. The correctness of this has been impugned in these proceedings. Earlier also, the applicant had made a representation on 19.09.2007 wherein he also sought parity with ASI Om Prakash and stated that the delay in finalization of the case could not be attributed to him. He had given a long list of persons who were reinstated from suspension during the pendency of criminal cases against them. In response to this, applicant was informed that he had to wait till framing of charges.

(3.) AT the hearing, the learned Counsel for the applicant referred to the impugned order dated 29.09.2008 that has been passed in pursuance to the direction issued earlier in the aforesaid matter. It has been strongly contended that if ASI Om Prakash who was also suspended in the same case, could be reinstated in service as back as two years, there is no reason why the applicant should continue to be under suspension in the same case. The only reason given by the respondents taking the plea is that ASI Om Prakash was reinstated by a different disciplinary authority. The principles governing revocation of suspension are the same and cannot be differentiated for the reason of a different disciplinary authority. If the applicant had to wait till framing of charges before his request for reinstatement in service could be considered, there is no reason why the same approach should not have been followed in the case of ASI Om Prakash. The applicant has been singled out and subjected to hostile discrimination.