Tribunal stays departmental inquiry against UT inspector

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, February 15

One of the many UT police inspectors demanding promotion as DSP, inspector Charanjit, against whom a previous inquiry had been opened, has been provided relief. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh Bench, has stayed the departmental inquiry opened against him and directed the authorities to complete the process of promotion of the applicant to the post of DSP forthwith.

The CAT has said that the order was passed mindlessly and without commenting on the merits of the case, it stayed the order. The Tribunal observed, “it is held that the respondents have abruptly recalled the exoneration order dated May 3, 2017 of the applicant, already passed by the competent authority, and having attained the finality, without any rhyme and reason and without application of mind, by way of a very brief, two-line order dated January 22, 2018 which is not legally permissible.”

An application was filed by inspector Charanjit Singh in the CAT saying that just one day before the DPC was to be conducted, inquiry against him in an old case had been ordered to be reopened. He had demanded that the same be stayed till the time the petition regarding his promotion is decided by the CAT. The order to reopen the enquiry against him was passed on January 22 by the Police Department.

Singh in his application had mentioned that the matter pertains to 2009 when a complaint against him had led to disciplinary proceedings against him. However, on May 3, 2017, he was found to be innocent in the matter. He had thus pleaded that reopening the inquiry just a day before the DPC is baseless. In addition, he had asked that the respondents be asked to recall the sealed cover letter and add his name via the review selection committee so that he could be considered for promotion.

What CAT says

The CAT has said that the order was passed mindlessly and without commenting on the merits of the case, it stayed the order. The Tribunal observed, “it is held that the respondents have abruptly recalled the exoneration order dated May 3, 2017 of the applicant, already passed by the competent authority, and having attained the finality, without any rhyme and reason and without application of mind, by way of a very brief, two-line order dated January 22, 2018 which is not legally permissible.”