BY MR. M.P. SINGH, VICE CHAIRMAN (A) By filing the present Original Application, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:- (a) Call for the records of the case; (b) Set aside and quashed the impugned orders dated 1.10.2002 and 27.03.2003 (Annexure P/1 and P/2) (c) Direct the respondents to promote the applicant to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Exe.) from the date of juniors have been promoted and further grant all consequential benefits to the applicant. (d) Award exemplary costs of the proceedings. (e) Pass such further order or orders which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
2. In brief undisputed facts of the case are that the applicant is working as a Head Constable in Delhi Police. While working as such, a chargesheet was issued to him and he was departmentally proceeded with. An enquiry officer was appointed to investigate into the charges.
3. The inquiry officer had concluded the inquiry and held that the charges are not sustainable. The disciplinary authority has recorded a note of disagreement and sent the same to the applicant for submission of his representation. The applicant submitted his representation on 6.2.2002. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 15.4.2002 has imposed the penalty of withholding of next increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The applicant has submitted an appeal against the aforesaid punishment order and the appellate authority vide its order dated 9.5.2002 has rejected the same.
4. The name of the applicant was placed in the secret list of persons of doubtful integrity w.e.f. 15.4.2002 for a period of three years vide order dated 1.10.2002. Applicant had filed OA 440/2003 24.2.2003 in this Tribunal challenging the orders passed by the disciplinary as well as appellate authorities dated 15.4.2002 and 9.5.2002 respectively and the Tribunal vide its order dated 26.2.2003 had dismissed OA 440/2003 by holding that :- 4. After considering the said pleas of the learned counsel for applicant, we find that the present application is totally without merit. In judicial review, this Tribunal will not sit as a court of appeal over the findings arrived at. The disciplinary authority has a right to take a different view from the report of the enquiry officer. Once the findings of the disciplinary authority are based on propensity of probabilities, on appreciation of facts, this Tribunal will not interfere in the said findings. Herein, the findings are not erroneous nor can it be stated that the same are totally without any evidence.
5. As regards the second contention, indeed, if as a result of the penalty imposed it affects applicants promotional avenues that will not amount to dual punishment.
6. Resultantly, the present application is dismissed in limine being without merit. Thereafter the applicant had challenged the order of the Tribunal in the Honble High Court of Delhi in C.W.P. (C) No.2425 of 2003. The Honble High Court vide its order dated 7.4.2003 passed the following orders:- Mr.Patel, learned counsel for the applicant submits, although, it was urged before the Tribunal that placing the name of doubtful integrity for a period of three years, is not in consonance with the penalty imposed, but the Tribunal has failed to consider this point in the impugned order. Ld. counsel seeks leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to move an appropriate application before the Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. The applicant, by filing the present Original Application, is challenging the order dated 1.10.2002 whereby his name has been kept in the secret list of the persons of doubtful integrity w.e.f. 15.4.2002 for a period of three years. He has also challenged the order dated 27.3.2003 whereby his representation was rejected.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
6. During the course of the arguments, the main grounds taken by learned counsel for the applicant are that (a) combination of punishment of reduction in pay and deferment of increments is contrary to the provisions of Rule 8 (d) (1) and (ii) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980; and (b) the representation of the applicant against the order of placing his name in the secret list of the persons of doubtful integrity has been rejected by passing a cryptic order on 27.3.2003. Applicant has also taken another ground that the decision regarding inclusion, continuance or removal of names from the list or for transfer of name from one list to another shall be done with the approval of the Commissioner of Police, but no approval of the Commissioner of Police has been taken for bringing the name of the applicant in the secret list of the persons of doubtful integrity. In this regard, he has drawn our attention to Sub para (e) of Para 9 of Standing Order No.265 dated 27.1.1989 which reads as under:- (e) A decision regarding inclusion, continuance or removal of names from the list or for transfer of names from one list to another shall be taken by Additional Commissioner of Police concerned in consultation with Additional Commissioner of Police incharge of Vigilance in the light of the comments of the controlling DPCs or DCP/Vigilance as the case may be and with the approval of DCP/Vig. in the cases of L/Ss. All such decision in the case of G.O.s shall however, be subject to the approval of Commissioner of Police.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that applicant had earlier filed OA 440/2003 challenging the orders of the disciplinary as well as appellate authorities and this Tribunal had dismissed that OA. Smt. Sumedha Sharma, learned counsel for respondents has also submitted that the approval of the Commissioner of Police is required only in the case of Gazetted Officer(s) for placing the name of the person in the secret list of doubtful integrity. The applicant is not a Gazetted officer as he is working as Head Constable and, therefore, the approval of Commissioner of Police is not required in this case. She has further submitted that the order of the appellate authority rejecting the representation of the applicant against placing his name in the secret list of the persons of doubtful integrity was passed after following the procedure and, therefore, OA is liable to be dismissed being without merit.
8. We have given careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties counsel. We find that the ground taken by the applicant that combination of punishment of reduction in pay and deferment of increments is contrary to the provisions of Rule 8 (d) (i) and (ii) of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 is not tenable as this issue has already been considered and decided by this Tribunal while adjudicating OA 440/2003 vide its order dated 26.2.2003. The other ground taken by the applicant that approval of Commissioner of Police has not been taken for placing his name in the secret list of the persons of doubtful integrity is not sustainable as the applicant is not a Gazetted officer. The other ground that the order dated 27.3.2003 is a non-speaking order is also not tenable and is accordingly rejected.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any ground to interfere in this matter. Accordingly, OA, being without merit, is dismissed. No costs. (Mrs. MEERA CHHIBBER) (M.P. SINGH) MEMBER (J) VICE CHAIRMAN (A) /ravi/