P.K.Basu, Member (A) - (1.) A joint departmental inquiry was initiated under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980 vide order dated 23.01.2009 against the applicant, Shri Sultan Singh, Sub Inspector of Police along with Woman Sub Inspector Ms. Shanti Devi, Assistant Sub Inspector, Shri Mahesh Kumar and Head Constable, Shri Balwan Singh on the allegation that they are collectively and individually responsible for violating the provisions of General Financial Rules and instructions of Police Headquarters in the purchase of curtains at a cost of Rs. 17,30,560/ - along with curtain rods for Rs. 2,73,780/ - in the financial year 2005 -2006. It was also alleged that they had deliberately committed procedural lapses.
(2.) A Departmental Inquiry (DE) was conducted and the disciplinary authority imposed a major penalty of forfeiture of three years of permanent service with cumulative effect on the applicant. The same major penalty was imposed on ASI Mahesh Kumar and major penalty of forfeiture of one year of permanent service with cumulative effect on Head Constable Balwan Singh and on Sub Inspector Shanti Devi by order dated 30.03.2010. The appellate authority vide order dated 10.02.2011 reduced the punishment of SI Shanti Devi and ASI Mahesh Kumar to that of severe censure and of the applicant herein, Shri Sultan Singh to that of forfeiture of two years permanent service with suspension period as not spent on duty. He further quashed the punishment awarded to HC Balwan Singh and his period of suspension was treated as spent on duty. The gist of the allegation is that there were no documents on the basis of which the demand for these curtains was projected or quotations were invited for the purchases. It was not mentioned as to where these curtains would be required and installed. There was no requisition for installation of curtains either from PTC, PTS/Jharoda Kalan or PTS Wazirabad. The allegation further was that on the day of receipt of first curtains i.e. 30.05.2005, 414 serviceable curtains were available in stock in addition to 460 already issued curtains. Moreover, the supply order was given to the firm not registered with the VAT department, which is against the rules.
(3.) THE applicant has assailed the orders dated 30.03.2010 and 10.02.2011 with the prayer to treat the period of suspension as spent on duty continuously. Firstly, it is argued that though the incident pertains to the year 2005, the charge memorandum was issued only in 2009 i.e. after four years and, therefore, on the ground of delay, the punishment order needs to be quashed. Secondly, it is stated that in the case of Shri S.K. Ahuja v. GNCT of Delhi, OA 3507/2010, the applicant therein who was the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) and the Chairman of the Purchase Committee, in the same matter, challenged the charge memorandum dated 30.09.2009, report of the inquiry officer and the disagreement note of the disciplinary authority. This Tribunal, vide order dated 10.01.2012, quashed the impugned orders and, therefore, no action was taken against the ACP, though as the Chairman of the Committee he was finally responsible for taking the decision to procure the curtains. While the other officials involved in the incident have been let off with much lesser punishment of severe censure, as indicated above, the applicant has been awarded a much severe punishment of forfeiture of two years permanent service with suspension period as not spent on duty. Thirdly, it was stated that despite his request, oral hearing was not permitted to the applicant by the disciplinary authority.;