Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 753 (DEL)

Const. Jasbir Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi

2008-08-07

J.R.MIDHA, MADAN B.LOKUR

body2008
Judgment MADAN B. LOKUR, J. (ORAL) CM No.10056/2008 Leaned counsel for the Petitioner says that he has deposited an amount of Rs.1,000/-with the Registrar General of this Court. The amount be made available by the Registrar General for utilization for juvenile justice. 2. The application is allowed and the writ petition is restored to its original number. WP(C) No.3083/2008 3. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 2nd May, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 2317/2004 4. The charge against the Petitioner was that he had received a sum of Rs.75,000/-from one Shri Ravi Kumar (complainant) to get him enlisted in the Delhi Police. Thereafter, the Petitioner informed the complainant that the appointment would take some time and in the meantime, he suggested that the complainant should deal in liquor. According to the complainant, the Petitioner did not get him enlisted in the Delhi Police nor did he return the money to him. 5. Subsequently, it appears that an amount of Rs.20,000/-was returned by the Petitioner to the complainant. 6. On these allegations, a departmental inquiry was held against the Petitioner for misconduct. 7. After conclusion of the inquiry and imposition of penalty, the Petitioner filed O.A. No.3210/2001 which was heard and decided by the Tribunal by an order dated 4th September, 2002. By that order, the Tribunal partly allowed the OA and directed reinstatement of the Petitioner as a suspended employee but required the Respondents to proceed with the inquiry from the stage of cross-examination of the witnesses and to conclude the inquiry within a period of six months. 8. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the Inquiry Officer from the stage of cross-examination of witnesses. The inquiry report went against the Petitioner and a penalty of forfeiture of five years” approved service was awarded. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred O.A. No.2317/2004 which has been dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 2nd May, 2006 and that is how the Petitioner is now before us. 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has raised two contentions. It is firstly contended that there is a violation of Rule 15(2) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 inasmuch as a copy of the preliminary inquiry conducted by the Respondents was not served upon the Petitioner. 11. 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has raised two contentions. It is firstly contended that there is a violation of Rule 15(2) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 inasmuch as a copy of the preliminary inquiry conducted by the Respondents was not served upon the Petitioner. 11. We cannot go into this issue at this stage because that was an issue available to the Petitioner when he had filed the first O.A. challenging the inquiry proceedings. The fact that the Tribunal while disposing of the first O.A. directed the inquiry to be continued from the stage of cross-examination of witnesses clearly suggests that the contention that the Petitioner was entitled to a copy of the preliminary inquiry was not accepted by the Tribunal. On the principle of constructive res judicata, we cannot look into the same issue. 12. The second submission is that there is a violation of Rule 16(iii) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that his client was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses. 13. We find from a perusal of the impugned order (paragraph 17 thereof) that the witnesses did not appear before the Inquiry Officer. Under these circumstances, the Inquiry Officer decided to go to the native village of the witnesses so that they could be cross-examined. He required the Petitioner to accompany him for this purpose but the Petitioner declined to do so on the ground that the witnesses had some personal enmity against him. We find that the Inquiry Officer had adopted this unusual method to enable the Petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses but when the opportunity was presented to the Petitioner, he declined to avail it. 14. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was not given an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. 15. We do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed.