Sushil Kumar vs Commissioner of Police and Others

Anil Kumar, J.—The petitioner, the constable of Delhi Police has challenged the order dated 16th December, 1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.A No. 2270/1992 dismissing his original application assailing the order of termination of his services by order dated 21st April, 1988.

The service of the petitioner was terminated in exercise of power under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. The petitioner has assailed the order primarily on the ground that the conditions of his service were governed by Delhi Police Act and Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules and the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 would not apply and he could not be terminated under those rules. The petitioner also assailed the notification issued by the administrator of Delhi Administration by which the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 had been made applicable to all the subordinates, civilian, employees and class IV employees of Delhi Police in addition to the rules and regulations made under the Delhi Police Act.

The petitioner had contended that under Sections 21 & 22 of Delhi Police Act, the services of the police constable could be terminated only after an enquiry, therefore, the provisions of temporary service rules are in conflict with the said provisions and his termination is invalid.

The case of the petitioner was contested on the ground that the petitioner was terminated simply and was not removed from the service as a measure of punishment.

The Tribunal had held that though there were allegations of production of bogus employment exchange card, however, the petitioner was a temporary public servant and, therefore, he could not claim the benefit available to a permanent Government servant. The reliance was also placed by the Tribunal on State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, holding that a temporary Government servant has no right to hold the post.

The Tribunal also considered the plea of the respondent of delay and laches in challenging the order dated 24th April, 1988 whereas the original application was filed after more than 4 years without disclosing any just and sufficient reason. The plea taken by the petitioner was that a similar case was pending before the Tribunal and he was awaiting the outcome of the other case which was decided on 26th April, 1991 and thereafter, the original application filed by the petitioner on 29th July, 1992 was not accepted.

The Tribunal has held that pendency of another petition was not a good ground and in any case even after the decision of another case pending before the Tribunal on 26th April, 1991, the petitioner failed to explain further delay from 26th April, 1991 to 29th July, 1992. The Tribunal also noticed that the original application filed by the petitioner was also dismissed in default on 17th November, 1997 and the application for restoration was filed on 23rd February, 1998. Despite the application for restoration being barred it was allowed subject to a cost of Rs. 4000/-, however, considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Tribunal had declined to interfere with the order of simplicitor termination dated 21st April, 1998.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The original application was dismissed on 16th December, 1998, however, the writ petition had been filed by the petitioner on 3rd July, 2009 and refiled on 16th December, 2009. The petitioner has again not explained the delay satisfactorily and the application for condonation of delay only stipulates that the clerk of the Counsel had to go to his village and, therefore, there was delay even in refiling of the petition. The petitioner has sought condonation of delay of 125 days by filing an application, however, no reasons have been given for delay in filing the writ petition. Along with the application, the affidavit of the clerk who is alleged to have the file of the petitioner has not been filed. In the circumstances, the petitioner has failed to explain the delay satisfactorily and there are delay and laches even in challenging the order of termination before the Tribunal and no cogent ground has been disclosed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to interfere with the order of the Tribunal not condoning the delay in filing the original application.

Even on merits this is not disputed and cannot be disputed that the petitioner was terminated when he was not in the permanent regular employment of the respondents. The learned Counsel has also failed to disclose any cogent grounds challenging the notification of the respondents by which the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules have been made applicable to all the Subordinate Civilian Employees and Class IV employees of Delhi Police in addition to the rules and regulations made under the Delhi Police Act.

On the facts and circumstances as disclosed, it is apparent that the foundation of the termination of service of the petitioner is not the forged registration card of employment exchange produced by the petitioner though that could be a motive for the same. If the foundation of termination simplicitor is not the bogus registration card of employment, the petitioner cannot impugn the simplicitor termination. No such facts have been disclosed by the petitioner which would show that the foundation of the termination was the forged registration card of employment produced by the petitioner.

For the foregoing reasons this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal dismissing his original application by order dated 16th December, 1998 in O.A. No. 2270/1992 so as to entail any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is without any merit and it is therefore dismissed.