AMITAB THAKUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Union of India And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
S.P. Singh, J. -
(1.) THIS O.A. has been filed for the following relief(s):
(a) Issuing/passing of an order or direction to the Respondents commanding them to immediately quash the illegal DE pending against the petitioner for more than a year now.
(b) Issuing/passing, as a consequence of the above relief, of an order or direction to respondents commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner to the rank of DIGP.
(c) Issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
(d) Issuing/passing of an order or direction to the concerned competent authorities to make an enquiry into the matter as to why such an exorbitant delay was made in this case and to punish the officers found responsible for this unexplained and deliberate delay.
(e) Issuing/passing of any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
(f) Allowing the original application with cost, this being a most fit case for allowing the cost because of the sheet callousness and partial delaying tactics of the respondents forcing the applicant to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal.
The applicant is an Indian Police Service (IPS) Officer of 1992 batch. He was posted as Superintendent of Police, Deoria from 29.3.1998 to 9.7.2000. The State Government issued an Office Order dated 27.10.2004 (Annexure A -1) under Rule 10 of All India Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 for imposing minor penalty for the alleged certain misconducts committed by him during his posting at Deoria.
(2.) THE applicant submitted written statement of defence dated 4.4.2005 (Annexure C -1) of CA dated 6.7.2010. According to the applicant, this departmental enquiry was closed by State Government with a warning vide Dated 25.5.2007 (Annexure A -2) whereby the chargesheet issued to the applicant on 27.10.2004 mentioned above was finally closed. The contents of Office Memorandum dated 25.5.2007 is reproduced below:
Further the case of the applicant is that the State Government vide its Office Order dated 26.5.2009 on the basis of letter dated 13.7.2007 of Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs revived the chargesheet dated 27.10.2004 after cancelling Office Memorandum dated 25.5.2007. The applicant was asked to submit his Statement of Defence within a period of 15 days. Within 5 days of getting the letter from State Government, the applicant sent a detailed representation on 15.6.2009 (Annexure A -4) followed by reminders. The applicant has come to this Tribunal on 22.4.2010 with the prayer for issuing/passing order or direction to the respondents commanding them to immediately quash the illegal DE pending against the applicant. In terms of this Tribunals order dated 9.8.2011, the applicant while arguing his case in person stated that he does not want to press other reliefs, lest the O.A. may be found to be hit by Rule 10 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 pertaining to multiple relief(s).
(3.) ACCORDING to para 5 of O.A., the grounds for relief for quashing the departmental enquiry pending against the applicant are as below:
(A) Because the DE against the petitioner has been reopened as against the basic provisions of law and are hence completely illegal.
(B) Because the same DE has been kept deliberately, intentionally and maliciously pending just like that for more than a year now without having taken any decision while ideally the entire process, including the Enquiry Proceedings and the final decision shall take place within six months.
(C) Because Sri Kunwar Fateh Bahadur, the Principal Secretary Home is personally biased in the case and is playing a most partisan role as has been exemplified from the above mentioned instances.
(D) Because there are atleast three cases of IPS officers in U.P. cadre where warning was issued after the DE and no review was made.
(E) Because due to this illegal DE and its completely unwarranted pendency, the petitioner is being denied his lawful rights of getting promoted to DIG.
(F) Because this behaviour and inaction on the part of the respondents is the most unfair, arbitrary, callous, deliberate, illegal, mala fide and biased and is no apparently violating of Articles 14 & 16 of Constitution of India.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.