Partly allowed

Zakaria Ahmed v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC16 Nov 2016W.P.(C)/10844/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed non-speaking orders detaching a CRPF Constable from the Central Athletics Team, holding them unsustainable as they failed to deal with the petitioner's reply or provide reasons, remanding the matter for a reasoned decision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 2.11.2016 and 4.11.2016 were set aside and quashed to be replaced by a fresh reasoned decision after hearing.

Zakaria Ahmed Vs Union of India & Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~35

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 10844/2016

¶4

ZAKARIA AHMED ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through Mr. Ankur Chibber, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent Through Mr. Anil Soni, Advocate for respondent No. 1 to 5 Mr. S.S.Sejwal, Law officer

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA O R D E R % 16.11.2016

¶9

CM No. 42508/2016 (Exemption)

¶10

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

Application stands disposed of.

¶12

W.P.(C) 10844/2016 & CM No. 42507/2016 (stay)

¶13

The petitioner was appointed as a Constable of the Central

¶14

Reserve Police Force on 1.4.1988, after which he underwent basic training from April, 1988 to March, 1989 at Group Centre-II, Ajmer.

¶15

On completion of basic training, the petitioner was posted to the 96 Battalion at Chandigarh where he continued till 2002. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was an active sports person

¶16

who had secured medals as stated in the petition. It is claimed that by reason of his achievement in the field of sports, the petitioner was inducted into the Central Athletics Team of the CRPF at New Delhi. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been attached to the Central Athletics Team of the CRPF at New Delhi for about 14 years from 2002 onwards.

¶17

It appears that the petitioner last secured a Silver Medal in the National Athletics Championship in the year 1995 in the 4 X 100 meter relay. After 1995 the petitioner did not actually participate in the sports events. According to the petitioner, having regard to the proficiency of the petitioner, the petitioner was made Assistant of the Chief Coach.

¶18

By an order dated 16.4.2014, the petitioner was de-inducted from the Central Athletics Team with immediate effect. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 16.4.2014 by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 3920/2014 which was disposed of by a consent order dated 8.8.2016 .

¶19

It was agreed that the respondents would issue a show cause notice seeking response of the petitioner in relation to the impugned

¶20

action and then take a decision after considering the response of the petitioner. After the aforesaid order was passed, a show cause notice dated 21.9.2016 was issued to the petitioner, inter-alia alleging that it had been noticed that the petitioner had been attached with the Central Athletics Team since 1994, but after participation in All India Police Games, 1995 and in the Federation Cup in 1997 the petitioner had not participated in any All India Police Games or any other National Championship. The petitioner was informed that the petitioner would be moved as he had not been able to secure Medals for the Force in the All India Police Games or National Championships and the duties of Team Manager for which he had been retained in the team were no longer required. The petitioner was required to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be detached from the Central Athletic Team on grounds alleged in the show cause notice.

¶21

In response to the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner gave a detailed reply dated 26.9.2016 inter-alia contending that he had been retained in the Central Athletic Team since he had been made Assistant Coach after he ceased to actively participate in sports

¶22

events. It was contended that the team of which he had been

¶23

appointed Assistant Coach had performed well all along.

¶24

By an impugned order dated 2.11.2016 which is under challenged in this writ petition, the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice has been rejected as devoid of merit.

¶25

The order dated 2.11.2016 is extracted herein below:-

¶26

“Refer to this Directorate letter of even no. dated 21/09/2016 and your reply dated 26/09/2016.

¶27

On the above matter, it is to inform that the reply submitted by you on the Show Cause Notice, has been considered and carefully examined in this Directorate. Competent Authority is not satisfied with your reply and rejected being devoid of merit.

¶28

Therefore, you are hereby de-attached from the Central Athletic Team with direction to report to your parent unit i.e. 176 Bn. CRPF forthwith.”

¶29

The impugned order dated 2.11.2016 is a non-speaking order which does not deal with any of the contentions in the detailed reply

¶30

given by the petitioner. The order does not indicate why the Competent Authority was not satisfied with the reply given by the petitioner.

¶31

The impugned order being non-speaking and devoid of reasons, the same cannot be sustained. After the issuance of impugned order

¶32

dated 2.11.2016, another order dated 4.11.2016 was issued for movement of the petitioner, which also cannot be sustained.

¶33

The impugned orders dated 2.11.2016 & 4.11.2016 are thus set aside and quashed. Thus order will not, however, prevent the respondent authorities from taking a fresh reasoned decision in accordance with law after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

¶34

The writ petition and the application are dismissed.

¶35

INDIRA BANERJEE, J

¶36

ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA, J

¶37

NOVEMBER 16, 2016 mw

Zakaria Ahmed v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zakaria Ahmed v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anita Kathuria Vs DDA & Anr.

Ram Prasad Vs UOI and Ors.

Rahul Birla Vs Union of India & Ors.

Anil Kumar Jain Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Kusum Lata Devi Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs Babu Lal Bunkar

S.N.Singh Rathore Vs Director of Education & Anr.

M/S Retax Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sh. Abhinash

M/S v & K Associates Vs Union of India & Ors.

Roopi Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Pinnacle Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India & Ors.

Rambabu Bantumilli Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rehana Khatun Vs Union of India and Ors.

Chhaya Vs Union of India & Ors.