In cases of common inquiries, equitable relief must be granted to parties situated similarly, regardless of delays in filing applications.

JUDGMENT

1. The present writ petition is arising out of order dated 01.01.2003 as well as order dated 13.03.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing O.A. No.2528/2001 & and the review petition, being R.A.No.76/2003, arising out of O.A. No.2528/2001, titled as Constable Sakeel Ahmed v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

2. The Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order quashing the Impugned Orders dated 01.01,2003 & 13.03.2003 passed by Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the O.A. No.2528 of 2001 and R.A. No.76 of 2003; and

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order quashing the order dated 24.11.1999; and

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to give the benefits of two years of service which have been forfeited by order dated 24.11.1999, giving all consequential benefits as were available to the Petitioner;"

3. The facts of the case reveal that Petitioner herein was serving as a constable in the Delhi Police. It is stated that on account of a complaint given by one Smt. Kaushalya Jain against three Police constables, a departmental inquiry was initiated against them and all the three Police constables were placed under suspension vide order dated 23.10.1996.

4. The undisputed facts of the case make it very clear that the Inquiry Officer exonerated all the three Police constables. It is stated that the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and not being satisfied with the Inquiry Report, a show cause notice/disagreement note was also furnished to all the three Police constables vide order dated 02.02.1998.

5. Finally, an order dated 14.05.1998 was passed in respect of the three Police constables, dismissing them from service against which an appeal was preferred which was dismissed by the Senior Additional Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range vide order dated 05.07.1999. Later on, a Departmental Revision Petition was preferred by the Petitioner before the Commissioner of Police against the dismissal order dated 14.05.1998 and order dated 05.07.199. The Commissioner of Police vide order dated 24.11.1999 set aside the order of dismissal dated 14.05.1998 in respect of all three Police constables and modified the order of punishment of dismissal from service to the punishment of forfeiture of two years' approved service permanently for a period of two years and proportionate reduction in their pay from the date of dismissal to the date of joining their duty was inflicted upon them.

6. It is pertinent to note that two of the Police constables, namely, Brij Pal Singh & Jai Prakash being aggrieved by order dated 24.11.1999, jointly preferred an application bearing O.A. No.31/2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') and the Tribunal allowed the said O.A. on 19.12.2000, setting aside the order dated 24.11.1999 passed by the Commissioner of Police and observed that the two Police constables would be entitled to all the consequential benefits as admissible to them.

7. It is stated that the Petitioner herein was under the impression that as the order passed by the Revisional Authority was a common order and he is not required to file an Original Application and under the same misconception, the Petitioner herein did not file any Original Application. However, later on, the Pe