Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Raj Pal Singh vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 9 January, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA NO. 1042/2011
New Delhi this the 9th day of January, 2012
Honble Shri G.George Paracken, Member(J)
Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A)
Sh. Raj Pal Singh
ASI in Delhi Police
PIS No.28790473
S/o Sh. Sultan Singh
R/o VPO Rawta
PS Jaffarpur,
New Delhi-110073.
. Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Anil Singal)
Versus
Government of NCT of Delhi through
Commissioner,
Police Headquarters,
I.P.Estate,
New Delhi.
D.C.P. (Special Branch),
Police Bhawan, Asif Ali Road,
Kamla Market,
Delhi.
Sh. B.L.Suresh
Asstt. C.P. (Special Branch),
Asif Ali Road,
Kamla Market,
Delhi.
.. Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Renu George)
O R D E R
Honble Shri George Paracken:
The applicant is aggrieved by the Annexure A-1 order dated 17.9.2010 by which the respondents have ordered regular departmental enquiry against him on the ground that he has committed gross misconduct which brought disrepute to the Police force and he acted in a manner unbecoming of a police officer which would render him liable to be dealt with departmentally under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. The allegation leveled against him were as under:
It is alleged against ASI Raj Pal No.2481/D (PIS No.28790473) (under suspension) that on 28.8.1999 one Jai Pal S/o Narain Singh R/o Village Rawta, Delhi reported that his brother namely Satypal was given lathi below on his head by Rajpal s/o Sultan Singh r/o Village Rawta, Delhi. On the statement of Jaipal, a case FIR No.108/99 was registered at PS Jaffarpur Kalan against the Rajpal and charge sheet u/s 147/149/323/341/308 IPC was filed against the Rajpal and other co-accused persons. According charge was framed u/s 147/149/323/341/308 IPC against the Rajpal and other co-accused persons and vide order dated 15.04.2005 the Honble court of Sh. V.P.Singh, Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi convicted accused persons for the offence u/s 174/148 and section 308 IPC read with 149 IPC. ASI Raj Pal, No.2481/D filed a criminal appeal No.401 to 407/2005 against the judgment dated 15 & 16.04.2005 in the Honble Delhi High Court. It clearly shows that ASI Raj Pal No.2481/D himself indulges in the criminal case which resulted into his conviction/sentence into the matter.
2. The brief background of the case is that the applicant, while working as Assistant Sub Inspector with respondents, was involved in a criminal case filed vide FIR No.108/99. He was convicted in the aforesaid case. Against the said judgment he has filed a criminal appeal No.401-407/2005 before the Honble High Court of Delhi and the same is still pending. He was also involved in another criminal case filed vide FIR No.34/2000 and he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 9.4.2000. In the said criminal case also he was convicted against which he had filed criminal appeal No.114/05 before the High Court of Delhi and the same is also pending for final adjudication. In view of the conviction in the aforesaid two cases, the respondents have dismissed him from service vide order dated 6.6.2008. Appeal filed against the same was also rejected vide order dated 28.7.2008. Against those orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, he had earlier approached this Tribunal in OA-1780/2008 and the same was allowed vide order dated 22.12.2008. The said order was also upheld by the Honble High Court of Delhi in Commissioner of Police vs. Brij Pal Singh, 155 (2008) DLT 115. Thereafter the respondents vide order dated 17.2.2009 reinstated the applicant but placed him under continued suspension. It was in the above background that the respondents have issued the impugned orders dated 17.9.2010 to hold a regular departmental enquiry against the applicant. The enquiry officer has also issued the summary of allegations against him vide letter dated 1.11.2010.
3. The applicant challenged the aforesaid impugned order on the ground that the respondents had only two options left with them, first to wait for the decision of the pending criminal appeal as per rule 11 (1) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 according to which, when a report is received from an official source, e.g. a court or the prosecution agency, that a subordinate rank has been convicted in a criminal court of an offence, involving moral turpitude or on charge of disorderly conduct in a state of drunkenness or in any criminal case, the disciplinary authority shall consider the nature and gravity of the offence and if in its opinion that the offence is such as would render further retention of the convicted police officer in service, prima facie undesirable, it may forthwith make an order dismissing or removing him from service calling upon him to show cause against the proposed action provided that no such order shall be passed till such time the result of the first appeal that may have been filed by such police officer is known. The second option available with the respondents was to initiate the departmental enquiry proceedings in terms of rule 11 (3) ibid which says that in cases where the dismissal or removal from service of the convicted police officer is not considered necessary, the disciplinary authority may examine the judgment and take such departmental action as it may deem proper. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, in terms of the aforesaid rule, the respondents ought to have first consider the dismissal/removal of the applicant on conviction was not necessary before initiating any disciplinary proceedings against him. Since no such decision has been taken, the impugned order is violative of the aforesaid provisions and has to be quashed and set aside.
4. The respondents have filed their reply but they have not disputed the aforesaid factual position. However, they have submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order to proceed against the applicant departmentally as he had committed gross misconduct and act which makes him unbecoming of a police officer which render him liable to be dealt with under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We fully agree with the counsel for the applicant Sh. Anil Singal. The rule 11 (3) of the rules ibid can be invoked only if the competent authority takes a decision first that the alleged misconduct of the applicant does not warrant dismissal or removal from service. In other words, once the applicant has been punished on judicial conviction and his first appeal is pending disposal, the disciplinary authority cannot dismiss him or remove him from service after holding a departmental enquiry against him. As the respondents have not taken any decision that the alleged misconduct committed by the applicant does not warrant his dismissal or removal from service, to proceed against him departmentally is illegal and wrong. In view of the above position, we allow this OA. Consequently, the impugned Annexure A-1 order dated 17.9.2010 ordering regular departmental enquiry against the applicant is quashed and set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed against the applicant as per law, if so advised. We may also make it clear that nothing said in this order shall be construed as an expression of our opinion as regards the merit of this case is concerned. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( George Paracken )
Member (A) Member (J)
sd