Narender Kumar vs Delhi Police And Ors

S.N.Terdal, Member (J)

We have heard Mr. S.C.Sagar, counsel for applicant and Ms. Harvinder Oberoi and Mr. Atul Kumar, 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:

“(i) set aside the impugned order dated 6.11.1998 passed by Disciplinary Authority/ACP, Sub-Division, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi (Annexure A);

(ii) direct the respondents to dispose of the statutory Appeal dated 26.10.2007 filed by the Applicant on the basis of the letter dated 8.5.2007

(Annexure A-1); or

(iii) this Hon’ble Tribunal may pass appropriate direction in respect of his Appeal dated 26.10.2007 on the basis of the reply dated 2.3.2017 and

24.3.2017 (Annexure A-7 & A-8 respectively);

(iv) pass any order/relief/direction(s) may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of the applicant.â€​

The relevant facts of the case are that a Show Cause Notice (SCN) for Censure was issued to the applicant in the year 1998 when he was

working as Sub Inspector (SI) by the then ACP, Lajpat Nagar vide SCN No.931/R-ACP/Lajpat Nagar, dated 04.09.1998 on the allegation that on

scrutiny of records it was found that in the cases where investigation was entrusted to the applicant he did not submit case diary showing the progress

in those cases, despite there being clear instructions to the effect that case diary of each case should be submitted well in time, but, however, the

applicant had not submitted the case diary even in a single case. He was given reminder also vide letter no. 1091/R-ACP/Lajpat Nagar dated

6.10.1998. In spite of issuing the SCN and repeated reminders including the reminder stated above, the applicant did not submit any response to the

said SCN. Consequently censure which was contemplated under the SCN was confirmed regarding his conduct vide order No.1234-42/R-ACP/Lajpat

Nagar dated 6.11.1998. Subsequently after 9 years in 2007, he requested for a copy of the order imposing censure on him. He was provided a copy of

punishment order on 8.05.2007 and he filed an appeal against the same after 5 (five) months; whereas he was required to file an appeal within one

month. Even after filing an appeal, he kept quite for nearly 10 years and on 08.02.2007 he filed RTI application and after getting the reply dated

2.03.2017 to the said RTI application, he filed the present OA seeking the above stated reliefs.

The counsel for the applicant vehemently and strenuously contended that he was never served with the SCN, as such he could not come to know

the passing of punishment of censure on him from 1998 to 2007. His further submission is that after filing an appeal, as no order passed on his appeal

was served on him he did not come to know about the fate of his appeal and he came to know about the same only when he received reply to his RTI

application which he has filed after 10 years as stated above.

The applicant has filed a Misc. application bearing No. 2439/2017 seeking condonation of delay. He has not given any cogent reason as to why he

did not come to know about the punishment of censure passed against him for about nine years. Equally he has not given any cogent reasons for

keeping quite for 10 years waiting for the disposal of his appeal. Thus, he has not given any day to day explanation for the delay of total 3465 days in

filing of this OA. The applicant, therefore, is not at all diligent about his rights. Thus, this application is hit by delay and laches on part of the applicant.

Hence, the MA for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.