O R D E R
By V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J):
The applicant, a Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the respondent- Delhi Police, filed the OA seeking quashing of the Annexure A1- Order dated 29.05.2012, whereunder the request of the applicant, seeking reckoning of his seniority with effect from 22.10.1982, was rejected.
2. The admitted facts, as mentioned in the impugned order itself are that the applicant was appointed as a direct recruit Sub-Inspector (Exe.) on 22.10.1982. He was placed under Suspension by order dated 22.07.1986 pending disciplinary proceedings. Having found guilty of the charges levelled against him, a Show Cause Notice was issued to him on 20.04.1987 proposing the punishment of forfeiture of entire service permanently with cumulative effect. After considering the representation of the applicant submitted thereto, a penalty of forfeiture of entire service of the applicant was imposed on him vide its Order dated 07.08.1987. The appeal filed by the applicant against the said penalty was rejected by the Appellate Authority's Order dated
31.12.1987.
3. Heard Shri Ajesh Luthra, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. P.K.Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the pleadings on record.
3
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that Rule 8 (d) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, provides for forfeiture of approved service of an officer who was found guilty, permanently or temporarily for a specified period. Though the disciplinary authority vide its Show Cause Notice dated 20.04.1987, proposed to impose a penalty of forfeiture of entire service of the applicant permanently with cumulative effect, but finally vide its penalty order dated 07.08.1987, imposed the penalty of forfeiture of entire service entailing reduction in his pay to the initial stage of his post held from the date of issue of the said order. Since the final penalty order does not impose the penalty of forfeiture of service permanently, the applicant is entitled for reckoning his seniority w.e.f. 22.10.1982, i.e. the date of his appointment, but not from 07.08.1987, i.e., date of the penalty order.
5. On the other hand, Mrs. P.K.Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondents, while drawing our attention to the penultimate paragraph of the penalty order dated 07.08.1987, submits that the disciplinary authority simply confirmed the proposed punishment and hence, the contention of the applicant that the absence of the word `permanently' amounts to forfeiture of service temporarily, cannot be accepted.
6. Rule 8 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 reads as under:
"8. Principles for inflicting penalties.
a) Dismissal/Removal- …………………………. ………….
4
b) Reduction - ………………………….. ……………………….
c) Withholding of increment. - ……………………………
d) Forfeiture of approved service. - Approved service may be forfeited permanently or temporarily for a specified period as under:-
(i) For purposes of promotion or seniority (Permanent only).
(ii) Entailing reduction in pay or deferment of an increment or increments (permanently or temporarily)."
7. The respondent-Delhi Police, vide its Circular dated 16.04.2002 (Annexure R-3), directed all the concerned to draft the penalty orders in a manner specified thereunder, while imposing the penalty of forfeiture of approved service. The relevant paragraphs of the said Circular read as under:
"4. In order to comply with the provisions of rules 8(d) of the DP(P&A) Rules 1980 while inflicting penalty of "forfeiture of approved service" the orders are required to be issued in the following manner:-
"That his ______ years approved service is forfeited permanently for purpose of his further promotion or seniority."
Or
"That his _____ years approved service is forfeited permanently entailing reduction in his pay from Rs.____ to Rs.____."
Or
"This his ____ years approved service is forfeited temporarily entailing reduction in his pay from Rs.__ to Rs.__ for a period of _____ years."
Or
"That his _____ years approved service is forfeited by deferment an increment or increments permanently or temporarily (in case of deferment of increment temporarily, specific period be mentioned)"
5. These instructions may be brought to the notice of all concerned and disciplinary authority may follow the provisions of rules 5 & 8 of the D.P.(P&A) Rules, 1980 while inflicting any penalty under the DP(P&A) Rules."
8. A perusal of Rule 8(d), referred to hereinbefore, read with the aforesaid Circular dated 16.04.2002, clearly indicates that wherever the disciplinary authority impose the penalty of forfeiture of approved
5
service, for the purpose of promotion or seniority, on a subordinate rank police officer, the order should specifically indicate that the same is forfeited permanently for purpose of further promotion or seniority. If the penalty of forfeiture of approved service is for the purpose of entailing reduction in pay or deferment of an increment or increments, the order should specifically state whether the said forfeiture of service is permanently or temporarily, for that purpose. Admittedly, though the Show Cause Notice dated 20.04.1987 proposed the punishment of forfeiture of entire service `permanently' with cumulative effect, but the final order of penalty dated 07.08.1987 does not contain the word `permanently' while imposing the penalty of forfeiture of entire service entailing reduction in the pay of the applicant. Hence, the absence of the word `permanently' in the penalty order dated 07.08.1987 makes it `temporary' and entitle the applicant with all consequential benefits. More so, when there was no separate punishment of forfeiture of service for the purpose of further promotion or seniority was imposed on the applicant.
9. Further, contention of the respondents that the Annexure R3- Circular, dated 16.04.2002 wherein, for the first time, a direction was issued to indicate whether the forfeiture was permanently or temporarily is subsequent to the imposition of penalty on the applicant, as the punishment order in his case was of 07.08.1987 and hence, the said Circular will not help the case of the applicant, has no force as the earlier Circulars were declared contrary to Rule 8(d)(i) &
(ii) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. Moreover, the
6
requirement of mentioning whether the forfeiture of service is permanent or temporarily was inbuilt in the Rule itself.
10. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the OA is allowed and the respondents are directed to reckon the seniority of the applicant w.e.f. 22.10.1982, with all consequential benefits. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of. No costs.
(Nita Chowdhury) (V. Ajay Kumar)
Member (A) Member (J)
/nsnrvak/