Ravi Karan vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And Ors

S.N. Terdal, J

We have heard Mr. Sourabh Ahuja, counsel for applicant and Ms. Priyanka Bhardwaj, counsel for respondents, perused the pleadings and all the documents produced by both the parties.

In this OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

"(a). Quash and set aside the impugned notification dated 30.11.2011, dismissal order dated 17.09.2013 and appellate authority order dated 29.09.2014 (referred in Para 1 of the OA). And

(b). Direct the respondents to reinstate the Applicant back in service and accord him all the consequential benefits viz. back wages, Promotion/Seniority, fixation of pay, difference in pay along with interest @ 18% p.a etc. And

(c). Award cost in favour of the Applicant and against the respondents. And/or

(d). Pass any further order, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case."

The relevant facts of the case are that on conviction of the applicant under Prevention of Corruption Act by the competent Criminal Court by invoking the powers under Rule 11 (i) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 after recording the reasons by the disciplinary authority dismissed the applicant from service vide order dated 17.09.2013. The appeal filed by the applicant was also dismissed by the appellate authority after following the procedural rules vide order dated vide order dated 29.09.2014.

The main contention of the applicant in this case is regarding the legality of amendment to Rule 11 (i). In so far as the legality of the amended rule is concerned, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Khushi Ram Vs. NCTD through the Commissioner of Police and Others (OA 2446/2013) has held that the amendment does not suffer from any illegality. In another case of ASI Tej Singh Vs. Govt. of NCTD through the Hon'ble L.G. GNCTD and Others (OA 2930/2013) vide order dated 13.11.2018 following the reasoning in the said order of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Khushi Ram's (supra) we have upheld the legality of the said amendment. Following the reasoning in the said orders we uphold the validity of the amended rule 11(i). The other reliefs claimed are based on the relief claimed by the applicant regarding the legal validity of Rule 11(i). In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders do not require to be interfered with.

Accordingly, OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.