Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Yashdeep vs Commissioner Of Police on 11 November, 2025
1
Item No. 13 (C-2)
O.A. No. 2326/2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 2326/2025
This the 11th day of November, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Shri B. Anand, Member (A)
YASHDEEP
No. D-765, PIS No 16160040
A-305, Block A, 3rd Floor, Police Staff Quarters
Police Station, Dabri.
... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Jayant Kumar)
Versus
1. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
Through
The Commissioner Of Delhi Police
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi - 110001
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Through Commissioner of Delhi Police
Nyayik Raksha Vahini, Delhi Armed Police,
Vikaspuri-Police Lines Complex, Delhi - 110018
3. The Enquiry Officer
Shri Naresh Kumar, ACP/HQ,
Through Commissioner of Delhi Police
Nyayik Raksha Vahini, Delhi Armed Police,
Vikaspuri Police Lines Complex, Delhi - 110018
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Manish Kumar)
2
Item No. 13 (C-2)
O.A. No. 2326/2025
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
1. By way of the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the order dated 07.05.2025 vide which the applicant's prayer for getting the departmental proceedings in abeyance till finalization of the criminal case registered against him is decided has been rejected.
2. The claim of the applicant has been contested by the respondents by filing the counter reply. The applicant has filed rejoinder and has reiterated his claim and the grounds pleaded in support thereof.
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance we have also perused the pleadings available on record.
4. It is undisputed that the applicant who has been working as Sub Inspector (Executive) under the respondents was involved in a criminal case FIR No. 490 dated 09.07.2024 under Section 419/420/468/471/120B of the IPC registered with the PS IGI Airport, Delhi. For the same set of allegations departmental inquiry has also been initiated 3 Item No. 13 (C-2) O.A. No. 2326/2025 against him vide order dated 19.08.2024 under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as finalization of the criminal case under reference is pending, if the departmental proceedings are also allowed to be continued, the applicant shall be compelled to disclose his defense which is likely to irreparably prejudice his defense in the criminal case. He submits that in this view of the matter it is imperative that the respondents stall the departmental inquiry and put it in abeyance till the finalization of the criminal case under reference. Learned counsel submits that the applicant, accordingly, preferred a representation which has been rejected by the respondents without application of mind in a mechanical manner and thus, the present O.A.
5. In the present O.A. the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):-
"a. To set aside the order dated 07.05.2025 and to further direct the respondents to not to proceed in departmental enquiry/kept in abeyance till the conclusion of proceedings in FIR No. 490 dated July 9, 2024 PS IGI Airport and to allow the representation of the applicant dated 16.04.2025; b. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant." 4
Item No. 13 (C-2) O.A. No. 2326/2025
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that while rejecting the applicant's representation the respondents have placed reliance on para 12(1) of the Standing Order No. Vig. & Pub. TPT/07/2024 which is stated to provide that "Departmental Proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simulataneously, as there is no bar to their being conducted simultaneously". They have further submitted in the impugned order that they have rejected his representation in view of the circular dated 15.10.2010 which provides that "in all cases where POC and Moral Turpitude are involved, DE proceedings can be initiated simultaneously and should not be kept/held in abeyance due to pendency of criminal proceedings, even if evidence in both the proceedings may be the same.".
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the counter reply the respondents have submitted in para 4.10- 4.11 that in the instant case since the applicant is involved in criminal case registered for moral turpitude and outraging the modesty of women through his misconduct which is purely covered in moral turpitude; and it is the settled position of law that the scope, effect and consequence of 5 Item No. 13 (C-2) O.A. No. 2326/2025 criminal and departmental proceedings are quite different and one may not necessarily determine the fate of the other.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the very assertion made in the counter reply clearly indicates that the impugned order has been passed keeping in view their understanding that the applicant is involved in criminal case which relates to outrage of modesty of women which is perverse in facts and law inasmuch as the evidence alleged against the applicant in the said FIR did not relate to outraging the modesty of women.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the claim of the applicant. He submits that both the criminal and departmental proceedings can go ahead simultaneously. It is only where complicated questions of law and facts are involved, both the proceedings are based on the same set of allegations, common witnesses and documents that it is desirable to stall departmental proceedings. In the present case, the applicant has in no manner indicated what the complicated questions of fact and law involved in the present case are. 6 Item No. 13 (C-2) O.A. No. 2326/2025
10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
11. Undisputedly, the FIR registered against the applicant referred to herein relates to Section 419/420/408/471/120b of the IPC. Apparently, none of the evidence alleged against the applicant relates to outraging the modesty of a woman. However, in support of the impugned order passed by the respondents it is stated by the respondents in their counter reply by way of an affidavit that since the applicant is involved in a criminal case registered for outraging the modesty of a woman, therefore, his misconduct is purely covered under moral turpitude. Such assertions on behalf of the respondents itself indicate non-application of mind by passing the impugned order dated 07.05.2025.
12.In view of the aforesaid, the O.A. is partly allowed with the following orders:-
(i) The impugned order dated 07.05.2025 is set aside.
(ii) However, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the competent authority amongst the respondents shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order in response to the applicant's prayer 7 Item No. 13 (C-2) O.A. No. 2326/2025 for stay of departmental proceedings till the criminal case against the applicant is finalized.
(iii) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(iv) Interim order passed in the matter shall continue till service of fresh order is served upon the applicant with due acknowledgement.
13. No costs.
(B. Anand) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/dd /