NEW DELHI: After a long time A Delhi Administration counsel was seen taking the offensive against a plea to stay or cancel contemplated government action against policemen accused of action or worst in the November 1984 massacre of Sikhs.

This was at the latest try by some  Of the policeman in this category the high court has refused to stop the government twice in the last month before the Central Administrative, Tribunal (The tribunal has the power of a high court on service conditions and related issues of government employees).

A bench of Mr P.K. Kartha and Mz, D.K. Chakrovority heard the rival arguments Mr Shankar Raju and Mr J.K. Das for eight hopeful policemen and Miss Geeta Lut for the Delhi Administration for more than two hours. They are to now deliver a verdict.

The policeman concemed have been going in batches to the high court or the CAT for the last month. The sudden rush is because the government is on the verge of issuing charge sheets to 72 police officials on the pasts or an official investigation by Miss Kusum Lata Mital, a retired secretary to the Union government. Her report came two years ago action staried, in effect early this year.

 On February 10, a high court bench of Mr BLN. Kirpal and Mrs Santosh Duggal allowed eight such policemen (with further 11 in the wings) to withdraw their petitions to quash any action based on the Mill report. Otherwise they said, they would dismiss the “premature and unreasonable” plea

Then, on February 28, a further batch of five policemen tried the same argument, this time using a different and more high-profile lawyer. The Kirpal-Duggal bench threw it out. A premature petition, they said, with no departmental inquiry having begun. “There be not around for this court to presume of assume the contemplated action being taken will not be as per law.” went their order. “That is the Key point,” began Miss Luthra in her hours argument for the Administration (the Delhi Administration prepared all the draft charge sheets) before the CAT today, Nothing the arguments used before the high court had been identical that, she demanded, were the petitioners aggrieved about? No one had been issued a charge sheet yet. How one very of injustice could before anything had happened: A petition cabinet is in the air: there has to be some violation (of justice or rules) first. The very issue of a charge sheet more than seven years after i all happened is gross violation argued Mr Shankar Raju and Mr Das for the policemen. “After seven or eight years, it is impossible for us to gather the evidence for our defence,” said Mr Raju “Our own memory of events, people is affected.” And went on to quote a Judgement of the CATs Hyderabad bench (where Mr Chakrovority, one of the two hearing todays case was held to have adversely affected a similar case,

Mr Raju and Mr Das were to lay more stress on the delay towards the end of the arguments when secure (he was buying a finals explanations on the main points, However the focus of their defence was not so much on time as on the basis of the disciplinary action, the Mital report.

All along, the policemen and heir counsels have blasted their main a millers at the Mital report. Their point: It never asked for their version or gave them a chance to examine the allegations against them. A point also made by Mr Dalip Kapur, who was given the probe job with Miss Mital. He said it was not possible to induce anyone without first hearing what they had to say.

Let you lordship say the Mi port won’t be the basis of a charge sheet and Ill withdraw my case,” said Mr Dass, And promptly an into difficult question, and Mir Kartha the other judge, Kept asking: “How do we know what is doing to be the basis of the charge sheet? If We Mita reports mentioned anywhere, how will now?”

Mr Das and Mr Raju insisted there could be no other basis. The government had said so to a committee of Parliament as well they quoted the words.

Miss Geeta Luthra quoted the same affidavit of the policemen on what was told to the Parliament committee to but less her point Mital had recommended dismissing six officials without even the need for a departmental procedure: their offence was that grave; she said The Parliament committee had been told the government did not agree with this. “It shows we are not blindly following the Mital report,” she said. Making a related point, one Mr Kartha said he agreed to a government has the power to disagree with even the formal inquiry officer, let alone the finding of someone in trusted together material in a preliminary inquiry. AS Mr Kartha noted, even if the Mital report exonerated the if the Mital report exonerated the 72, the  government could legally say it disagreed and was proceeding against them,

Quoting numerous judgments of the Supreme Court and the CAT itself (including one Mr Kartha) she noted they al said this much, No one can stop a preliminary enquiry, a regular one can be stopped or questioned only if it violates the principles of natural justice or the petitioner has exhausted all other remedies. In these peoples case nothing had happened yet.

When they would have all the opportunity to defend themselves at each stage  if not, they could and should come to the CAT. But what were they challenging at this point? “If you had to challenge Mital you should have either done in 1987 (when it was appointed) or when the report came in 1990. Not in 1992,” And, for good measure, quoted a Judgement of Mr Kartha in 1988 on the same subject stopping Mital, on a petition filed by a senior  officer among the 72, Mr Chandra Prakash (whose case is coming for hearing in the high court in a few days). Mr Kartha and another judge had dismissed Mr Prakashs them   saying it was premature the report had not been given to the government at the time,

Article extracted from this publication >> March 20, 1992