1

O.A. No.329/2017

Item No.37 (C-II)

Central Administrative Tribunal

Principal Bench, New Delhi

O.A. No.329/2017

This the 20^th day of January, 2023

Hon’ble Mr. R N Singh, Member (J)

Hon’ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)

Ashok Kumar,

PIS No.28910872

Constable in Delhi Police,

Aged about 47 years,

S/o Sh.Ram Pat,

R/o WZ-35/B,

Naraina Village, New Delhi-28.

... Applicant

(By Advocate : Shri Anil Singal)

Versus

1.Govt. of NCT of Delhi,

Through Commissioner of Police,

PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.

2.Special C.P. (Training),

PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.

3.DCP (PTC),

Jharoda Kahan, New Delhi.

...Respondents

(By Advocate : Shri Amit Yadav )

2

O.A. No.329/2017

Item No.37 (C-II)

O R D E R (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R N Singh, Member (J):

In the present OA filed under Section 19 of the

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has

challenged the findings of the Inquiry Officer dated

01.10.2014 (Annexure-A/1), Disciplinary Authority’s

order dated 30.12.2014 and the Appellate Authority’s

order dated 22.12.2016 (Annexure-A/3), vide which the

Appellate Authority has confirmed the penalty imposed

by the Disciplinary Authority.

2. The applicant has prayed for the following

relief(s):-

“1. To quash and set aside the

impugned

Findings

dt.1.10.2014,

Order of Punishment dt.30.12.2014

and Appellate Order dt.22.12.2016.

2. To

direct

the

respondents

to

restore to the applicant his original

service with all consequential benefits

including

promotion/seniority

and

arrears of pay.

3. Award cost of the proceedings in

favour of the applicant and pass such

other and further orders as deemed fit

and proper.”

3

O.A. No.329/2017

Item No.37 (C-II)

3. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed

counter reply. They have opposed the OA and prayed

for dismissal thereof.

4. Brief facts leading to the present OA are that on

receipt

of

certain

complaints,

the

matter

was

considered by the competent authority and disciplinary

proceeding was initiated against the applicant on

17.12.2013. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report

dated 01.10.2014 (Annexure-A/1). On receipt of the

Inquiry Officer’s report, the same was tentatively

accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and a copy

thereof was supplied to the applicant to file a

representation, if any. On receipt of the representation

of the applicant, the matter has been considered by the

Disciplinary Authority, who has passed the impugned

disciplinary

order

of

penalty

dated

30.12.2014

(Annexure-A/2), vide which, punishment of forfeiture of

three years approved service with cumulative effect

entailing proportionate reduction in pay scale with

immediate effect has been imposed upon the applicant.

Aggrieved by the order of penalty, the applicant

preferred statutory appeal and the Appellate Authority

4

O.A. No.329/2017

Item No.37 (C-II)

has rejected the appeal of the applicant vide order

dated 22.12.2016 (Annexure-A/3). Though, in the

present OA, the applicant has raised various grounds

to challenge the aforesaid impugned orders and in

support of his relief as prayed for, however, Shri Singh

learned counsel for the applicant, at this stage, has

restricted his arguments only on one ground i.e.

though the Inquiry Officer has returned the finding of

allegations qua gender bias against the applicant as

not proved and the Disciplinary Authority has

tentatively agreed with the said impugned Inquiry

Officer’s report dated 01.10.2014, however, without

issuing any disagreement note with tentative opinion

and reason for such disagreement, he has come to a

conclusion that the allegations of gender bias against

the applicant also stands proved and keeping in view

his such opinion, he has passed order of punishment.

He submits that beside other grounds, merely on this

ground, the Disciplinary Authority’s order is in

violation of the provisions of Rule 16(xii)(a) and the

same deserves to be set aside.