JAGDISHCHANDER Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 16.01.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/Tribunal) in O.A. No. 1228/2013, whereby the said application was dismissed by the Tribunal. The issue that arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether the respondent was justified in treating the period during which the petitioner/applicant remained under suspension, i.e. between 12.10.1999 to 15.05.2000, as "not spent on duty ". The case of the petitioner was that the said period could not be treated as "not spent on duty ", as sought to be done by the respondent.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that the petitioner - while posted as a Clearing Officer in the Immigration Department at Indira Gandhi Airport was alleged to have misbehaved with a senior lady officer on 11/12.10.1999. Accordingly, he was immediately placed under suspension on 12.10.1999. On the very next day, i.e. 13.10.1999, a regular departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. On 15.03.2000, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report. On 15.05.2000, the disciplinary authority, while re - instating the petitioner into service, inflicted the punishment of withholding/stoppage of five years increment with cumulative effect. He also directed that the period of suspension i.e. from 12.10.1999 to 15.05.2000 be treated as "not spent on duty ".

(3.) THE petitioner assailed the punishment orders in O.A. No. 2632/2001. The same was disposed of on 22.09.2011, requiring the respondents to reconsider the quantum of punishment. The respondent No. 3, Deputy Commissioner of Police, passed a fresh order on 16.12.2011, maintaining the punishment as imposed by the appellate authority earlier. The petitioner again preferred an appeal against the order dated 16.12.2011. The appellate authority, on this occasion, passed a fresh order dated 23.04.2012, thereby reducing the punishment to withholding/stoppage of one increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The period of suspension was again directed to be treated as "not spent on duty ". This led the petitioner to prefer O.A. No. 1228/2013, wherein the petitioner assailed the punishment orders dated 16.12.2011 and 23.04.2012. As aforesaid, the Tribunal rejected the original application.