EX CONST PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O SHRI MAHESH BAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is seeking review of the order of this Tribunal dated 26.7.2005 passed in OA No. 2320/2004 on variety of grounds, which have been pleaded in para 5 of the application. THEse grounds are that that Tribunal had erred in holding in para 12 that because the police raiding party had apprehended the applicant along with others in a bank dacoity and the applicant also accepted that he was involved in 5 criminal cases, the disciplinary authority justifiably concluded that he was a person of desperate and dangerous character and may have several associates with similar dangerous criminal propensity; the Tribunal erred in holding that in OA 1515/2001 it was decided that the Tribunal would not sit in judgment over the reason like a court of appeal; the Tribunal also erred in holding that the applicant has been found acting in association with other desperate characters and appreciation that the witness would not come forward to depose against him was correct; the Tribunal had not given reason why it has accepted the conclusion of the department since in the criminal cases the witnesses were same most of whom were police personnel, therefore, the finding that the witnesses would be afraid of deposing against the applicant was incorrect; the Tribunal also did not appreciate that the department had not even appointed an Inquiry Officer or preferred a list of witnesses and that the enquiry proceedings were dispensed with only out of sheer laziness; the Tribunal also did not given reason for disagreeing with the earlier judgments not taking into account the circular dated 29th December, 1993 issued by the Department of Police and; that even the notices were not issued to the witnesses for appearance on the presumption that they would not come forward to depose against the applicant was not correct etc. etc.

(2.) At the hearing, learned Counsel for the applicant referring to paragraphs 12 and 13 of the order under review has stated that the Tribunal relied upon a judgment of the Full Bench in OA No. 1515/2001 but has not correctly applied the ratio of the law laid down and this is a sufficient ground for recalling the order and re-hearing the OA.

(3.) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das 2004 SCC (L&S) 160 observed as under: