WP(C) No.2407/2010 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.2407/2010 % Date of Decision: 13.04.2010 Govt. of NCT of Delhi …. Petitioner Through Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal & Mr.Alok Singh, Advocates. Versus Vinod Kumar …. Respondent Through Nemo. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * The petitioner, Government of NCT of Delhi, has impugned the order dated 30th November, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.776 of 2009, titled as ‘Vinod Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others’ allowing the original application filed by the respondent, and set aside the show cause notice dated 13th October, 2006 and order of Censure dated 20th September, 2007, and the Appellate Order dated 30th November, 2008 passed against the respondent. WP(C) No.2407/2010 Page 2 of 5 It appears that a complaint was made by Smt. Bhagya Sharma that a factory owner and his supervisor had misbehaved with her. The factory owner had filed a counter complaint against her that she and her husband had been making false allegations and threatening them with getting their factory closed down on the allegations that the factory could not be run in the residential area and that the factory could not operate the generator during electricity power shedding and extorting money from them. On account of the cross complaints filed by the parties, the local police had prepared a Kalandra under Section 107 & 150 Criminal Procedure of Code against both the parties. This action was resisted by the complaint of Smt.Bhagya Sharma on the ground that Kalandra could be only against factory owner and not against her as she was a victim, and in the circumstance, the attitude of the concerned ASI and SHO/respondent was totally unjustified. Though the Kalandra was prepared by ASI Charan Singh, however, no action was taken against him and a show cause notice proposing to inflict punishment of censure dated 13th October, 2006 was issued against the respondent. Pursuant to departmental enquiry, the punishment of censure was imposed on the respondent by order dated 20th September, 2007 which was also upheld by the Appellate order dated 30th November, 2008. WP(C) No.2407/2010 Page 3 of 5 The order of censure imposed upon the respondent was challenged before the Tribunal contending inter alia that though the censure is a minor punishment, however, the same could be taken into account while dealing with the cases of the Police Officer in the matter of their promotion. It was also contended that the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority were bereft of any reason as the pleas and contentions of the respondent were not considered. It was contended that since the complaints were filed by both the parties against each other, therefore, the Assistant Sub Inspector was justified in issuing Kalandra under Section 107 & 150 Cr.P.C. and since no action was proposed against the ASI who had issued the Kalandra, any action against the respondent was unsustainable. The respondent contended that in view of the cross complaints, it could not be held that only one of the party was a victim in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal considered the pleas and contentions and held that it will be a travesty of justice that a person, who is said to have wrongly proceeded against both the parties, would not be touched and the one, who had only approved his action, would be inflicted with the punishment, and thus, set aside the order of censure dated 20th September, 2007 and the Appellate order dated 30th November, 2008 dismissing the appeal and also the show cause notice dated 13th October, 2006. WP(C) No.2407/2010 Page 4 of 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the same pleas as were raised before the Tribunal. Learned counsel, however, is unable to explain as to how action of censure could be sustained against the SHO when the Kalandra was issued by the ASI Sh.Charan Singh against whom no action was contemplated and had been taken. It has also not been explained as to who only one party will be victim when the cross complaints were filed by the parties of misbehavior and extortion of money. The complainant, Smt.Bhagya Sharma had complained of misbehavior whereas factory owner had alleged that she had been threatening to get their factory closed down by making false allegations that he had been running a factory in the residential area and using generator during power shedding contrary to Rules and Regulation and extorting money. In the circumstances, prima facie it could not be held that Smt.Bhagya Sharma was a victim and the factory owner was not a victim. In any case, the Kalandra was issued by the ASI Charan Singh against whom no action had been taken then the action against the SHO/respondent would also be not justifiable. Consequently, the order of censure passed against the respondent has been set aside and the order of the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances cannot be faulted. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in the circumstances, has failed to disclose such ground which will show any illegality or WP(C) No.2407/2010 Page 5 of 5 irregularity in the order of the Tribunal allowing the original application of the respondent and setting aside the order of the censure. In the circumstances, there is no such illegality or irregularity in the order dated 30th November, 2009 impugned before us which will require any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, without any merit and it is dismissed. All the pending applications are also dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. APRIL 13, 2010 VEENA BIRBAL, J. ‘VK’