* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.340/2007
% Date of Decision: 05.07.2011
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. .... Petitioners
Through Nemo
Versus
Constable (DVR) Ashok Kumar .... Respondent
Through Mr.Kumar Rajesh Singh
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
1. Whether reporters of Local papers YES
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be NO
reported in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 10th October,
2006, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi in OA No.258/2005 titled as „Constable (DVR)
Ashok Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.‟, directing the
petitioners to grant the relief of 50% of the salary to the respondent
for the period of 14th May, 1991 to 2nd October, 2002 and also in
WP(C) No.340/2007 Page 1 of 5
granting the full salary for the period of 3rd October , 2002 to 9th
June, 2003, if not already paid, after deducting the subsistence
allowance, if any paid. The original application had been filed by the
respondent seeking the quashing and setting aside of the appellate
authority order dated 25th February, 2004 whereby one year of
approved service of the respondent was forfeited with consequential
benefits in terms of seniority, promotion etc.
2. The punishment was imposed on the respondent pursuant to a
departmental enquiry on the charge that while being posted in 1st Bn
DAP he was detailed for duty with Govt. vehicle No. DEG 4996 at PTS
Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi for transportation of force for Ram Lila
and VVIP duty at Rashtrapati Bhawan, etc on 22.09.1990 with the
direction to remain there till further orders. However, the respondent
came back along with his vehicle on 23.09.1990 from PTS, Jharoda
Kalan, New Delhi at his own sweet will. When the matter was
reported that the respondent has returned from duty, Inspector
Balbir Singh asked the respondent as to why he had come back
pursuant to which the respondent replied “MAINE KYA THEKA LE
RAKHA HAI AUR BHI DRIVER HAIN”. The respondent thereafter had
refused to go back to PTS for duty and a report to this effect was
lodged vide DD No 38-B dated 23th September, 1990 DAP, Control
WP(C) No.340/2007 Page 2 of 5
Room. Allegations were made against the respondent for having
remained absent willfully and unauthorizedly on previous two
occasions. The respondent had also absented himself previously on
six occasions and had been awarded PDs/WP etc.
3. The pleas and contentions of the respondent were considered
by the Tribunal in detail and after due consideration the Tribunal
held that there were no grounds to interfere with the decision of the
petitioners with regard to the punishment imposed on the
respondent.
4. However, regarding the issue relating to the treatment of the
period of the respondent‟s absence, which had been treated as not
spent on duty, the Tribunal had noted that although the appellate
authority had modified the substantive punishment of forfeiture of
approved service permanently from three years to one year, it did not
however record any specific decision relating to the period of
dismissal, suspension etc. In the circumstances, the Tribunal had
held that the decision of the petitioners to award the reduced
punishment of forfeiture of one year approved service permanently is
not interfered with in the interest of maintenance of discipline in the
police force. However, the Tribunal took note of the fact that the
WP(C) No.340/2007 Page 3 of 5
respondent should not be denied the relief in terms of the treatment
of his period of absence, since it was largely due to prolonged legal
proceedings, for which he could not be held responsible. Therefore,
the Tribunal had directed the petitioners to pay 50% of the salary to
the respondent for the period 14.05.1991 to 2.10.2002. Since for the
period of suspension the respondent had been subsequently
reinstated, it was held that he would be entitled to full salary for the
period from 3.10.2002 to 9.6.2003 if the amount was not already
paid, after deducting the subsistence allowance, if any paid to the
respondent. It is this relief that has been challenged by the
petitioners in the present writ petition.
5. The matter had been taken up for hearing on 4th July, 2011,
however, no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioners, but no
adverse order was passed against the petitioners in the interest of
justice and the matter was allowed to remain on board in the
category of „Regular Matters‟.
6. Today, again no one is present on behalf of the petitioners. In
the circumstances, we are constrained to dismiss the writ petition in
default for non appearance of the petitioners and their counsel. The
WP(C) No.340/2007 Page 4 of 5
writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in default. The interim orders
dated 16th January, 2007 and 18th February, 2009 are also vacated.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
July 05, 2011.
vk
WP(C) No.340/2007 Page 5 of 5