AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By filing this OA, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) To quash and set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 23.12.2003 and order dated 28.01.2004 (A-3), 01.06.2004 (A-2) & 05.02.2018 (A-1);
(ii) To declare the action of the respondents in initiating disciplinary action against the applicant vide Show Cause Notice dated 23.12.2003 and treating the void order dated 28.01.2004 as valid and making the same basis to treat the applicant ineligible for grant of President"s Police Medal for meritorious services, as illegal and unjustified and issue appropriate directions to remove the Censure dated 28.01.2004 as upheld by subsequent orders from the service record of applicant.
(iii) To allow the OA with exemplary costs.
(iv) To pass any such other order as this Hon"ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
This is a case in which the applicant while working as Inspector (now ACP) was issued a show cause notice for censure dated 5.12.2003 and after completion of requisite formalities, the competent authority vide order dated 28. 1.2004 confirmed the said proposed punishment of censure. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the disciplinary authority, he preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 1.6.2004. Thereafter the applicant preferred his revision petition/second appeal to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, which was decided by the respondents vide Memo dated 18.7.2017 wherein mentioning that the rule position of the case is that at present there is no provision of revision petition/second appeal lies to Commissioner of Police, Delhi as the Hon"ble Court has already held that Rule 25-A & B of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal Amendment) Rules, 1994 is ultra vires of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. In such situation, the appeal filed by the applicant was not maintainable. Thereafter, applicant preferred his revision petition before the Lt. Governor, Delhi against the said punishment order dated 28.1.2004, which was rejected by the Lt. Governor, Delhi vide order dated 5.2.2018 on the ground that the appeal is not maintainable under Rule 25-C of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.
2.1 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the respondents, the applicant has filed this OA seeking the reliefs as quoted above.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant besides raising the other grounds as raised in the OA has submitted that the decision of the Lt. Governor, Delhi, which was communicated to the applicant vide order dated 5. 2.2018, one of the impugned orders, is without application of mind as Rule 25-C of the Rules ibid clearly provides that the Lt. Governor is competent to decide the aforesaid revision petition. The said Rule 25-C of the Rules ibid reads as under:-
"25-C. The Lt. Governor may at any time on his own motion or otherwise call for the records of any case decided by the Commissioner of Police and confirm, modify, or annul the order forced in it."
Learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed the aforesaid rule position but submitted that the revision petition dated 17.9.2017 submitted by the applicant to the Lt. Governor is against the orders passed way back in the years 2003 and 2004 and as such the same is barred by limitation and therefore, is not maintainable.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties on this limited issue, it is observed that from the plain reading of aforesaid Rule 25-C, it is clear that under the aforesaid Rule, the Lt. Governor has power to confirm, modify or annul the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, as held by the Hon"ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jeetu Wede vs. Union of India and others in Writ Petition (Civil No.5936/2016 decided on 3.2.2017. Hence, the order dated 5.2.2018 impugned in this OA stating that the appeal of the applicant is not maintainable, is misconceived and is not tenable in the eyes of law. With regard to the contention of the respondents to deny the relief to the applicant of this OA, as the orders passed way back in the years 2003-2004, which have been agitated before the Lt. Governor, were delayed considerably, we find that this issue has been squarely addressed by the Hon"ble Delhi High Court in Jeetu Wede vs. Union of India and others in Writ Petition (Civil No.5936/2016 decided on 3.2.2017 in which it has been held as under:-
"Rule 25-C, therefore, was legal and valid. The said Rule does not incorporate the precept of a reasonable time and, therefore, the Lieutenant Governor can confirm, modify or annul any order without being subjected to any time-bound limitation."
In view of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 5.2.2018 (Annexure A-1) is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Lt. Governor to consider and decide the aforesaid revision petition dated 17. 9.2017 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
In the result, the present OA is disposed of in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.