* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (C) No.6593/2011
% Date of Decision: September 28, 2011
EX CONSTABLE NARESH KUMAR ....Petitioner
Through Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Advocates.
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI & ORS .....Respondents
Through Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Additional
Standing Counsel, GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
%
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
By order dated 26th November, 2000, the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, „the tribunal‟) has
dismissed the original application O.A.No.828/1999 filed by the petitioner
against the order osf dismissal from service. The tribunal recorded the
contention raised by the petitioner that there was violation of Rule 14 (4)
of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 and held that the
contention had no merit. In paragraph 8 of the abovementioned order, it
WP (C) 6593/2011 Page 1 of 5
was specifically recorded that no legal or factual issue was raised by the
counsel, who had appeared for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 4633/2001, which was disposed of
on 21st September, 2006. In the writ petition a number of additional
grounds were raised. The writ Court did not examine the said additional
grounds after recording that learned counsel for the petitioner had raised
certain factual issues which had bearing on his justifying his absence, but
these were not raised and questioned before the tribunal. The writ Court
referred to the aforesaid observations of the tribunal that no other ground
other than contravention of Rule 14(4) had been raised. The writ court,
accordingly, held that the petitioner cannot be permitted to assail the
findings with regard to assertion that he had applied for medical leave and
there was non-consideration of medical certificates. Confronted with this
situation, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that he would
approach the tribunal and urge the factual issues. The writ Court,
accordingly, observed as under:-
“……………It would be entirely for the petitioner to
raise such a ground to apply for review and for the
Tribunal to deal with them in accordance with law.
The petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn
with liberty as prayed for.”
WP (C) 6593/2011 Page 2 of 5
3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review application
R.A.No.197/2006 and a Miscellaneous Application No.2276/2006, which
have been dismissed by the impugned order dated 3rd March, 2011.
4. The power of review is limited and is not an appellate power. The
tribunal has examined its earlier order dated 27 th November, 2000 and
thereafter rightly held that the grounds and contentions raised by the
petitioner were beyond the scope and ambit of power of review, which
has been conferred by the statute on the tribunal. It may be also noted that
the petitioner did not initially file an application for review before the
tribunal immediately after the order dated 27th November, 2000 was
passed, but had preferred a writ petition in the High Court in April, 2001.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to take us into the merits of
his pleas and has referred to the medical certificates filed by him. Prima
facie, the alleged medical certificates do not inspire confidence as they are
by the same doctor and the petitioner has not enclosed any diagnostic
report. We have perused the order of dismissal. The petitioner was
appointed as a Constable in Delhi Police in November, 1990. He
remained absent on six occasions during the period 9th December, 1993 to
5th September, 1994 as per the details given below:-
WP (C) 6593/2011 Page 3 of 5
SI. No. D.D. No.& date D.D. No.& date Period Absence Hours
of absence of arrival of Day Minutes
1. DD No.27 dt. DD No.59 dt. 08 07 15
9.12.93 17.12.93
2. DD No. 68 dt. DD No.71 dt. 10 04 15
5.3.94 15.3.94
3. DD No.31 dt. DD No.68 dt. 67 05 05
3.4.94 8.6.94
4. DD No.75 dt. DD No.37 dt. 06 21 20
16.6.94 23.6.94
5. DD No.70 dt. DD No. 40 dt. 10 02 05
24.6.1994 4.7.94
6. DD No.78 dt. DD No. 52 dt. 63 03 40
5.7.94 6.9.94
6. Previously also the petitioner had remained absent on four
occasions. The defense taken by the petitioner during the disciplinary
proceedings was that due to personal problems like ailing wife and
parents and death of his father, he had remained absent from duty. For
some period the petitioner had taken the plea that he was ill and under
treatment in the government dispensary at Najafgarh. The petitioner was
not able to substantiate the pleas in the departmental proceedings and
accordingly order or dismissal was passed and the said order was upheld
by the appellate authority as well as the revisionary authority. The
difference in pleas/excuses is palpable and apparent. The petitioner was
WP (C) 6593/2011 Page 4 of 5
appointed in a disciplined force and should not have remained repeatedly
absent from duty. However, the costs of Rs.20,000/- imposed by the
tribunal are made easy.
7. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present
writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed except to the extent
that the costs imposed have been waived.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011
NA
WP (C) 6593/2011 Page 5 of 5