CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2020) 09 CAT CK 0111

Attar Singh vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Others

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 24 September 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narasimha Reddy, J · Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 1399 Of 2020, Miscellaneous Application No. 1203 Of 2020
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 467 words

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

MA No.1203/2020

This Application is filed with a prayer to condone the delay in filing the OA. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and the respondents at some length, we find that the M.A. is not at all necessary in view of the reasons which we propose to indicate in the order in the OA itself.

Hence, the MA is closed as superfluous.

The Registry shall number the OA.

OA No. 1399/2020

1.

The applicant was working as Constable in the Delhi Police. He was tried for an offence referable to FIR No. 38/1983 dated 06.03.1983, PS Sultanpuri. The Trial Court convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-. Taking the conviction and sentence into account, initially, the administration placed him under suspension through order dated 18.01.2003 and thereafter dismissed him from service through order dated 16.12.2005. The departmental appeal preferred against that, was dismissed on 03.03.2014. It is stated that the applicant filed CA No. 82/2003 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the judgment of Trial Court and through judgment dated 05.07.2018, the Hon'ble High Court has acquitted him.

2.

After obtaining the copy of the judgment, the applicant submitted a representation on 13.04.2020 with a request to reinstate him into service. Stating that no action has been taken thereon, he filed this OA challenging the order of punishment as well as the order of Appellate Authority.

3.

We heard Sh. Amit Chawla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sh. H.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondents, at the stage of admission.

4.

The applicant was dismissed from service on account of the conviction and sentence passed against him by the Trial Court. Except that he preferred a departmental appeal, he did not challenge the order of punishment ever since 2014. The applicant started claiming remedy once he was acquitted by the Appellate Court. One such representation is dated 13.04.2020. This is not a case in which the applicant was dismissed from service as a sequel to the departmental proceedings. It was solely on the basis of the conviction in a criminal case. Once the conviction was set aside and the applicant is acquitted, the impact thereof needs to be examined by the appointing authority of the applicant. Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 contains the relevant provisions in this behalf.

5.

We, therefore, dispose of the OA, directing the respondents to pass orders on the representation dated 13.04.2020 submitted by the applicant, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

There shall be no order as to costs.