JUDGMENT
Khan, J.
1. Petitioner, a constable in Delhi Police, was
charged of unauthorised absence. he was dismissed from
service upon inquiry. He took appeal and revision against
this but failed. He then filed OA No. 1645/95 and
complained that respondents had committed breach of Rule
16(V)(vii) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980
by not affording him reasonable opportunity for filing list
of witnesses and leading defense evidence.
2. Tribunal dismissed his OA by order dated 18.8.1999
in general terms and by placing reliance on its Full Bench
judgment in Virender Kumar v. Commissioner of Police,
(leading OA No. 139/92 and a batch of OAs decided on
28.7.1999).
3. Petitioner’s short grievance is that Tribunal Full
Bench judgment in Virender Kumar’s case was not attracted
to the issue raised by him in his OA and yet it had
disposed of batch of OAs including his OA on misplaced
reliance on this judgment and the judgment of Supreme Court
in State of Punjab v. Bakshish Singh .
4. We have examined the record and the impugned
Tribunal order and also Tribunal Full Bench judgment in
Virender Kumar’s case and have found that Tribunal had
dealt with the petitioner’s OA in a slip-shod manner
without coming into the grips with the issues raised by
him. We find that he had specifically complained of
non-observance of requirements of Rule 16(v)(vii) of the
Rules but Tribunal had failed to deal with this plea at any
stage in its cryptic order. This order accordingly becomes
unsustainable and is set aside. Petitioner’s OA No. 1645/95
shall revive and be disposed of afresh on merits dealing
with all the pleas raised by him and after hearing parties.
Parties to appear before Tribunal on—–.