ASHOK KUMAR Vs. ADDITIONAL DY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present O.A. was earlier disposed of vide Tribunal's order dated 2.5.2000. THEreafter the applicant had filed writ petition No. 4246/2000 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which was disposed of vide Hon'ble High Court's order dated 17.9.2001. THE relevant portion of the Hon'ble High Court's order reads as follows:-

(2.) The earlier judgment referred to in the above order i.e., filed by Constable Shri Jitender Pal Singh (O.A. 1406/1996) had been noted but distinguished in the later order passed by the Tribunal on 2.5.2000 in the present O.A.

(3.) BOTH the learned Counsel have repeatedly referred to the relevant portions of the judgments of the Tribunal dated 4.12.1998 in O.A. 1406/1998 and dated 2.5.2000 in the present O.A.. Learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that the decision in the present case must necessarily be in accordance with the reasoning and conclusions arrived at in the order dated 4.12.1998 in Jitender Pal Singh's case (supra). On the other hand, Mr. George Paracken, learned Counsel has submitted that perusal of the relevant paragraphs of these two judgments, and particularly paragraph 8 of the judgment dated 2.5.2000, wherein the Tribunal had distinguished the facts from the facts applicable to Jitender Pal Singh's case (supra) are very relevant which are also fully supported by the documents available in the DE proceedings file. Learned Counsel for the respondents prays that there was, therefore, no illegality in the order dated 2.5.2000 in distinguishing the earlier judgment on the facts, which was permissible under law.