W.P.(C) No. 8299/2005 Page 1 of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 8299/2005 % Date of Decision: 08.03.2011 HEAD CONSTABLE SATENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Shyam Babu, Advocate versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS .... Respondents Through : Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate with Ms. Simran, Advocate and Ms. Zamma, Advocate 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 ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? No ANIL KUMAR, J. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shyam Babu, states that despite communication addressed to the petitioner, he has not responded. The learned counsel for the respondents states that after the deemed suspension of the petitioner, a regular enquiry was conducted in which the Disciplinary Authority had imposed punishment of withholding of next increment for a period of 5 years with cumulative effect and for not counting the period of deemed suspension as on duty. The order of the Disciplinary Authority was modified by the Appellate Authority by imposing punishment of censure and for treating the suspension period as spent on duty for all intent and purpose. In the circumstances, the plea of the petitioner that he could not be put on deemed suspension has become infructuous as the period of W.P.(C) No. 8299/2005 Page 2 of 2 deemed suspension has been ordered to be treated as spent on duty for all intent and purpose. In the circumstances, the writ petition has become infructuous. Dismissed as infructuous. ANIL KUMAR, J. VEENA BIRBAL, J. MARCH 8, 2011 kks