9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding a disciplinary action against a Head Constable (Driver) of Delhi Police. Detailed Analysis: 1. Background and Appeal: The case involves an appeal filed by the Union of India against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The original disciplinary action was taken against Khazan Singh, a Head Constable (Driver) of Delhi Police, who was initially awarded the punishment of censure by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. The Additional Commissioner of Police set aside the censure and directed a regular departmental inquiry under Rule 25 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980. Khazan Singh then appealed to the Central Administrative Tribunal, which quashed the order of the Appellate Authority, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court. 2. Show-Cause Notice and Penalty: Khazan Singh was issued a show-cause notice for alleged grave carelessness and negligence in leaving an Inspector without a vehicle while on VIP duty. Despite his unsatisfactory reply, a penalty of censure was imposed on him. The appellate authority, as per Rule 25 of the Rules, had the power to confirm, set aside, reduce, or enhance the punishment, or remit the case for further inquiry. In this case, the Appellate Authority set aside the censure and ordered a regular departmental inquiry to be conducted. 3. Central Administrative Tribunal's Decision: The Central Administrative Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Authority, citing a contravention of Rule 25(1)(d) by the Appellate Authority. The Tribunal argued that the Appellate Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by directing a fresh inquiry for a major penalty, which was not explicitly provided for in the Rules. The Tribunal held that the order of the Appellate Authority had to be set aside due to this jurisdictional error. 4. Supreme Court's Ruling: The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, analyzed the powers of the Appellate Authority under Rule 25(1)(e) and (f) of the Rules. The Court noted that the Appellate Authority had wide powers to remit the case for further inquiry and pass suitable orders. Despite the lack of specific mention of the rule under which the appeal was disposed of, the Court held that the Appellate Authority validly exercised its powers under the relevant Rules. The Court disagreed with the respondent's argument that Rule 23(1)(e) was not applicable due to the absence of a prior departmental inquiry, emphasizing the broad discretionary powers of the Appellate Authority to ensure justice. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and reinstated the order of the Appellate Authority without imposing any costs. This detailed analysis outlines the progression of the case, the key legal provisions invoked, the decisions of the lower tribunals, and the final ruling of the Supreme Court, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved in the judgment.
|
