1

O.A. No. 3968/2017

Central Administrative Tribunal

Principal Bench: New Delhi

O.A. No. 3968/2017

Reserved on: 30.01.2023

Pronounced on: __.__.2023

Hon’ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A)

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

1.Mukesh Kumar, Age-28 years,

Constable,

S/o Sh. Mahender Singh,

Village-Patasni PO-Untlodha,

Tehsil & District-Jhajjar,

Haryana

2.Naresh Kumar, Age-29 years,

Constable,

S/o Sh. Krishan Kumar,

VPO-Jondhan Kalan,

The-Israna, District-Panipat,

State- Haryana

…Applicants

(By Advocate(s): Mr. Sachin Chauhan)

Versus

1.Govt. of NCTD through

The Chief Secretary,

Govt. of NCTD,

A-Wing, 5^th Floor,

Delhi Secretariat,

New Delhi – 110113

2.The Commissioner of Police

Police Headquarter, MSO Building,

I.P. Estate, New Delhi

3.The Joint Commissioner of Police,

Armed Police through the

The Commissioner of Police

Police Headquarters, MSO Building,

I.P. Estate, New Delhi.

4.The Dy. Commissioner of Police,

3^rd Bn., DAP, Vikas Puri Police Complex,

New Delhi – 110018

…Respondents

(By Advocate(s): Mr. Sameer Sharma)

2

O.A. No. 3968/2017

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

This Original Application has been filed by the applicants

under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking

the following relief(s):-

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

The applicant nos. 1 and 2 were appointed as Constable in

the years 2009 and 2014 respectively and have rendered their

duties efficiently and diligently and are having clean and

unblemished service record. By virtue of the present Original

Application, the applicants are seeking to quash and set aside the

impugned orders dated 28.01.2016, vide which the D.E. was

initiated against them, 12.09.2016, vide which the major

punishment, i.e., forfeiture of two years approved service was

3

O.A. No. 3968/2017

imposed upon the applicants and 09.03.2017, vide which their

appeals have been rejected by the Appellate Authority.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants points out that the

Departmental Enquiry was a joint enquiry initiated against both

the applicants herein. He further submits that the charges are

vague and indefinite, thus vitiating the entire D.E., as there is no

specific allegation(s) against the applicants which could be

construed as misconduct. He relies upon the decisions rendered

by the Hon’ble Apex Court in following judgments:-

(i)

Anil Gilurker Vs. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetria Gramin

Bank & Anr. (SLP (C) Nos. 33088-33089 of 2010) decided

on 15.09.2011;

(ii)

Suresh Chandra Chakrabarty Vs. State of West

Bengal, reported in (1970) 2 SCC 548;

(iii)

Sawai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in

(1986) 3 SCC 454; and

(iv)

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar,

reported in (2009) 12 SCC 78;

4. Learned counsel for the applicants further draws our

attention to the charges framed against the applicants. The same

are reproduced as under for ready reference:-

4

O.A. No. 3968/2017

He further relies on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in Appeal (Civil) No. 2302 of 2005 on 31.10.2006, titled

The Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. A.

Venkata Rayudu. The relevant portion of the same reads as

under:-

5

O.A. No. 3968/2017

6. Learned counsel for the applicants further states that the

said Standing Order which has been relied upon does not find any

mention in the list of documents to be relied upon by the

prosecution, which is reproduced as under:-

6

O.A. No. 3968/2017

7

O.A. No. 3968/2017

7. Learned counsel for the applicants further stresses that what

has been drawn is an extraneous charge, which was not even a

part of the charge memo inasmuch as per the findings of the

Enquiry Officer (Annexure A-4), the relevant portion thereof reads

as under:-

8. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the

present case is of no evidence and therefore no misconduct has

been committed by the a