Rajbir Singh vs Joint Commissioner Of Police And Ors

Jasmine Ahmed, J

The brief factual matrix of the case is that the applicant who was working as Constable in Delhi Police was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 1.05.2002. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per order dated 6.08.2002 of the respondents, the applicant received the Show Cause Notice on 3.05.2002. Vide order dated 6.08.2002, the `censure' was confirmed and there was a direction to provide a copy of that order to the applicant free of cost. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, stated that order of `censure' was never received by the applicant and that only in the year 2012, he came to know that one `censure' has been imposed on him in the year 2002. In August 2012, the applicant moved an application through RTI requesting the respondents to supply all documents related to `censure', which was awarded to him in the year 2002. He received a reply in November 2012 that RTI application submitted by him has been sent to West District for necessary reply. In December 2012, the applicant received the reply to his RTI application from West District whereby he came to know that all the records till 31.12.2008 had already been destroyed on 27.11.2012. In March 2015, the applicant moved an application/ representation to the Joint Commissioner, West District for supplying to him all documents related to `censure' but the Joint Commissioner of Police rejected his representation vide order dated 22.05.2015.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the respondents issued a list of Head Constables on 27.05.2015 for supplying their service particulars for promotion to the post of ASI wherein the name of the applicant did not figure. The respondents issued another list of Head Constables on 15.07.2015 for supplying service particulars for promotion to the post of ASI but there also, the name of the applicant did not find mention. Hence this OA.

The respondents have filed their counter affidavit vehemently opposing the contentions of the applicant. They have stated that copy of Show Cause Notice dated 1.05.2002 proposing to award `censure' was received by the applicant on 3.05.2002 but he failed to submit any reply thereto within the stipulated time of 15 days. As such, the Show Cause Notice was confirmed vide order dated 6.08.2002.

The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the applicant had woken up in the year 2012 and moved an RTI application asking for the documents related to `censure' awarded to him in 2002. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal in the year 2015 i.e. after a long period of 13 years against the `censure'. Accordingly, on this ground alone, the OA deserves to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondents also stated that relevant record pertaining to award of `censure' to the applicant was already destroyed on 27.11.2002 as per PPR 11.31 vide office order No.3667-3737/Record Branch/West after adopting due procedure and a copy of the said order was circulated to all Districts/ Units of Delhi Police for information. The applicant had obtained a copy of order dated 6.08.2002 from his service record and moved a time barred appeal on 20.03.2015 i.e. after more than 12 years and tried to take advantage of destroyed record, which was only an afterthought. Accordingly, for obvious reasons, the appellate authority did not consider his appeal being barred by time. Moreover, the applicant has received all the financial and service benefits i.e. ACP/MACP, financial upgradation and confirmation in the rank of Head Constable etc. after the effective period of six months to the punishment of `censure' and now there is no adverse effect remaining of `censure' of 2002 on his service/ financial benefits. She further contended that neither service particulars of juniors to the applicant have been called for promotion nor his immediate senior and junior have been promoted to the rank of ASI (Exe). Thus the plea of not mentioning his name amongst the Head Constables whose service particulars have been called for promotion lists, is not considerable.

Heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the pleadings on record.

It is seen that the applicant was issued Show Cause Notice on 1.05.2002, which has been received by him on 3.05.2002. He chose not to reply to the Show Cause and hence the `censure' was confirmed ex parte. It is also seen that the applicant filed a RTI only in the year 2012 and again after three years filed an appeal in the year 2015. It is thus reflected from the attitude of the applicant that he was never vigilant about the steps to be taken by him. The respondents have rejected his claim as time barred as he filed the appeal after more than twelve years. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in a plethora of judgments that a person who sleeps over his rights is not entitled to get any benefit at a belated stage.

Accordingly, in our considered view, the total attitude of the applicant reflects that he was not vigilant enough about his legal rights. Moreover, he has been provided with all the service and financial benefits. Thus, at such a belated stage, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision taken by the respondents. The OA is, therefore, dismissed both on merit as well as on the ground of limitation. No costs.