Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rakesh Sharma vs Comm. Of Police on 24 January, 2023
1 O.A. No.1708/2020
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.1708
.1708 of 2020
Orders reserved on : 18.1.2023
Orders pronounced on : 24.1.2023
.1.2023
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Rakesh Sharma
S/o Sh. Ramji Lal Sharma
R/o House No.4339,
Gali No.112, B-Block
B
Sant Nagar, Burari
Delhi-110084
110084
Aged about 39 years
... Applicant
(through Advocate Shri Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police
PHQ, MSO Building,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi
2. Joint Commissioner of Police,
(Licensing Unity)
1st Floor of Police Station,
Defence Colony, Near Moolchand Hospital,
Andrews Ganj, New Delhi-110049.
Delhi 110049.
3. Deputy Commissioner of Police,
(Licensin Unity)
(Licensing
1st Floor of Police Station,
Defence Colony, Near Moolchand Hospital,
Andrews Ganj, New Delhi-110049.
Delhi 110049.
... Respondents
(through Advocate Shri Jagdish N.)
2 O.A. No.1708/2020
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) :
By filing the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing him from service by invoking their power under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. The applicant has also challenged in the instant OA, the order passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting his representation/statutory appeal against order of the Disciplinary Authority. The applicant has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order(s) passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities and has also prayed for his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as a Constable on 28.1.2003 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Head Constable. However, while working as a Head Constable in Delhi Police, the applicant was involved in a case FIR No.105/18 under Sections 409/420/468/471/201/120-B of IPC, which was registered on 14.5.2018 at P.S. EOW, at the Economic 3 O.A. No.1708/2020 Offence Wing, Crime Branch Delhi Police and was arrested on 3.7.2018. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the Disciplinary Authority by invoking the power under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India had passed the impugned order dated 10.8.2018 (Annexure A/2) dismissing the applicant from service and on a statutory appeal preferred by the applicant, the Appellate Authority has rejected the same vide order dated 28.8.2019 (Annexure A/1). Aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 10.6.2018 and 28.8.2019, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of the present OA.
3. Pursuant to the notices, the respondents have filed their counter reply refuting the contentions of the applicant. The applicant has also filed his rejoinder besides reiterating the contentions, he has denied the averments made by the respondents in their counter reply.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings on record.
5. The facts and reasons for passing the impugned disciplinary order are evident from the Disciplinary 4 O.A. No.1708/2020 Authority's order dated 10.8.2018, the contents of which are reproduced below:-
"Whereas, it has been informed by Economic Offence Wing, Crime Branch, Delhi Police that HC, Rakesh Sharma, No. 74/Lic (PIS No. 28030955) has been arrested in case FIR No. 105/18, dated 14.05.2018 U/s 409/420/467/468/471/201 /120-B IPC, 66 1.T Act, P.S. EOW, Delhi while posted at Licensing Unit, on the allegation of misappropriation of Govt. funds, valuable securities during the course of business transactions at the time of grant of various services like renewal of Arms Licences etc. Whereas, the accused bye-passed the system of payments by tampering with the computer system and thus generated computer generated fake receipts fraudulently on the existing system for unauthorized collection of fee in such cases. Whereas, the money collected during delivery of such services were not deposited in the Govt.
account and the same was
misappropriated/embezzled. Further, official
documents i.e. folders, renewal forms contained therein and fee receipt were deliberately removed from the Record Room thereby leading to destruction of evidence by removal of incriminating documents from the files. Whereas, it has been reported by the investigating agency that during the course of investigation, the disclosure made by other accused revealed that it was Rakesh Sharma who had prepared the format of the forged receipt corroborated by the digital foot prints of the creation of the format of the fake receipt in Word file, resembling with the original one, which was found in the Computer System installed at the renewal desk manned by Rakesh Sharma. Furthermore, about 95% of the total 728 Arms License Renewal Files, wherein forged receipts have been found to be issued, were processed by Rakesh Sharma as dealing assistant.
The above criminal act on the part of HC. Rakesh Sharma, No. 74/Lic (PIS No: 28030955) is highly abhorrent on his part, being a member of the police force. It is the first and foremost duty of 5 O.A. No.1708/2020 a policeman to protect the life and property of the citizen as well as Govt. The misappropriation of government funds is tantamount to a depraved behavior and extremely poor integrity both of which are a sine qua non of a professional police officer. The act of HC, Rakesh Sharma, No.74/Lic (PIS No. 28030955) has not only tarnished the image of Delhi Police but has badly shattered the faith of common man in the police. His continuation in the police force is likely to create a negative liability for the functioning and credibility of the department. The misconduct and active criminal involvement of HC, Rakesh Sharma, No. 74/Lic (PIS No. 28030955) has been established during investigation of this serious criminal case involving moral turpitude. Whereas, he committed the crime while on duty and further violated the oath which every police officer takes before joining the police force. As such, his act is beyond pardonable capacity of any authority bound by morals and conduct rules. His services are no more desirable in Delhi Police and he needs to be dismissed immediately for the aforesaid reasons. Therefore, HC, Rakesh Sharma, No.74/Lic (PIS No. 28030955) deserve exemplary punishment i.e. dismissal from the police force with immediate effect under article 311 (2) (b) of the constitution of India at the first instance without following the procedure of regular departmental proceedings. Whereas, interrogation to ascertain the source of forged Fee Receipt recovery of the misappropriated funds collected against forged receipts and unearth the conspiracy hatched for the commission of the above said offence need complex investigations, beyond the scope of administrative enquiry. The purpose for fact finding is really not needed as case FIR No. 105/18, dated 14.05.2018 U/S 409/420/46 /4687471/201/120-B IPC, 66 I.T Act, P.S. EOW, Delhi, makes the sequence of events and act of the complicit accused HC, Rakesh Sharma, No. 74/Lic (PIS No. 28030955), very evident and prima-facie establishes his criminal mind and conduct, further buttressed by his arrest on merit by a specialized investigation agency. Whereas, holding of the departmental proceedings will DE inimical to speed justice due to likely possible intimidation and threats to those who may depose against him 6 O.A. No.1708/2020 during investigation and trial and possible affiliation of material witnesses to the accused HC. Whereas, his continuation in the force may hamper the integrity of the investigation of a sensitive nature. Whereas, in view of the enormity of transactions involved over a long period and large number of possible material witnesses, it may not be practically feasible to conduct a speedy departmental enquiry in a reasonable time frame.
Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I, Asif Mohd. Ali, DCP/Lic, Delhi do hereby DISMISS defaulter HC, Rakesh Sharma, No.74/Lic (PIS No. 28030955) from service with immediate effect under article 311 (2) (b) of constitution of India. HC, Rakesh Sharma, No. 74/Lic (PIS No. 28030955) was arrested on 03.07.2018. His period from the date of his arrest till the issue of this order is also decided as period "not spent on duty" for all intents and purpose..."
6. Shri Luthra, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has submitted that the applicant was falsely implicated in the said case FIR in which charge-sheet has already been filed in the court of competent jurisdiction and as such there was no question of invoking the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. He has further argued that sole reason for dispensing with the inquiry is that the department's case against the applicant is for the reasons as recorded in the disciplinary authority's order, precisely noted above, however, the disciplinary authority had never tried to hold a departmental enquiry on the said allegations/misconduct 7 O.A. No.1708/2020 against the applicant as mentioned in the aforesaid impugned order on the basic of which the applicant was dismissed by invoking the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India without any evidence as to how the holding of departmental inquiry is not practicably possible which is the condition precedent for invoking the powers under the said Article. Shri Luthra has further submitted that dispensing of the enquiry for even non- deposition of witness(es) due to fear was held to be illegal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Security Officer vs. Singasan Rabidas, reported in 1991 (5) J.T. 117. Shri Luthra has also submitted that the impugned orders are in clear violation of the respondents' own circular dated 28.12.1998, which categorically provides that the powers under Article 311 (2)(b) is not to be used as a short-cut and instructions contained in the said circular has to be strictly followed, which has not been done by the respondents in the instant case, as there is no proof on record to say that the applicant is in a position to influence the witnesses and further there is no reason given by the respondents that when the same witnesses can appear before the learned Trial Court to depose against the applicant and as to why they will not 8 O.A. No.1708/2020 appear in the departmental inquiry. Rather the disciplinary and the appellate authorities have passed the impugned orders without application of mind to the conditions as contained in the aforesaid OM. Further Shri Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant, has submitted that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ct. Sumit Sharma vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others (OA 1383/2020 and a batch decided on 10.2.2022.
7. Shri Jagdish N., learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that from the contents of the impugned order of the disciplinary authority, as quoted above, it is evident and prima facie establishes the applicant's criminal mind and conduct, further buttressed by his arrest by a specialized investigation agency, holding of the departmental proceedings will be inimical to speedy justice due to possible intimidation and threats to those who may depose against him during investigation and trial and possible affiliation of material witnesses to the accused, his continuation in the force may hamper the integrity of a disciplined force and in view of the enormity of transactions involved over a long period and large 9 O.A. No.1708/2020 number of possible material witnesses, it may not be practically feasible to conduct a speedy departmental inquiry in a reasonable time frame. Hence, the orders passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities are apt in law and no interference in the matter is warranted from this Tribunal.
8. In rebuttal to the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents, Shri Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a co-delinquent Khushi Ram involved in the aforesaid case FIR, who was also dismissed by the respondents by invoking the provisions of Article 311 (2)(b) of the Constitution of India, had filed OA No.2829/2019 before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide common Order/Judgment dated 11.4.2022, upon finding that the case of Khushi Ram was squarely covered by the Order/Judgment of this Tribunal dated 10.2.2022 in the case of Ct. Sumit Sharma (supra), allowed the said OA partly with the similar directions as had been granted in the case of Ct. Sumit Sharma (supra). He has placed a copy of the aforesaid order/judgment of this Tribunal dated 11.4.2022. Shri Luthra has further submitted that the Order/Judgment dated 11.4.2022 has since been 10 O.A. No.1708/2020 implemented by the respondents. Therefore, he has submitted that the applicant in the instance OA deserves similar treatment.
9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleading on record as well as the case law cited by the learned counsels for the applicants.
10. On perusal of the impugned order(s) and precise facts, as recorded there from and derived from the pleadings on record, the following facts are evident:-
(i) The applicant was alleged to be involved in the said criminal case FIR registered against him and co-
delinquent(s), preliminary inquiry/investigation was conducted;
(ii) Chargesheet has been filed by the respondents in the said FIR before the concerned learned Court;
(iii) The reason for dispensing with the Departmental Enquiry is that violation of all the norms, ethics and morality by indulging into such grave office of extortion, tarnished the image of the police department in the society, witnesses may not come 11 O.A. No.1708/2020 forward to depose against the applicant, possibility of witnesses or public may be unduly harassed by the applicant(s) due to influencing position of the delinquent(s); gravity of the charges leveled against the applicant(s); commission of grave offence(s); misconduct being extremely dangerous; threat to the discipline, integrity and morality of the police force; unscrupulous and illegal activities, embezzlement of Govt. funds etc.
11. After considering the relevant material on the subject, including circulars dated 21.3.1993 and 11.9.2007 issued by the respondents which were similar to subsequent circular dated 28.12.1998, and the case law, this Tribunal has considered the similar issue while deciding a batch of cases, OA No.1383/2020 and others, titled Ct. Sumit Sharma vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others, etc., vide common Order/Judgment dated 10.2.2022, paras 31, 32 and 45 to 47 read as under:-
"31. It is not that the issue of invoking the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India came for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases or any other cases before other Court(s) and/or Tribunal(s) only but the same had attracted the attention of the respondents themselves as well and the respondents have 12 O.A. No.1708/2020 themselves emphasized that the Disciplinary Authority should not take resort to Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India lightly but only in those cases where it is not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry. The same is evident from the circular dated 21.12.1993 (Annexure A/10 to OA 467/2020) of the respondents, which reads as under:-
"The Police Officers involved in the case of rape or dacoity or any such heinous offence have been dismissed straightway under Article 311(2)(b) despite the fact that criminal cases have been registered. Such dismissals without holding D.Es are illegal because in such cases D.E. can be conveniently held.
It is, once again emphasized that the Disciplinary Authority should not take resort to Article 311(2)(b) lightly but only in those cases where it is not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry. Whenever the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry he must record at length cogent and legally tenable reasons for coming to such conclusion. In the absence of valid reasons, duly reduced in writing, no such order of dismissal etc. with resort to Article 311(2)(b) can be sustainable in law."
32. The issue regarding application of the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India came before the Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases and the law stands settled by the Apex Court in the Constitution Bench decision in Tulsiram Patel (supra), the similar issue came before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble High Court(s) and the Tribunal(s) in many cases thereafter and after considering the issue at length, this Tribunal had made observation as in 13 O.A. No.1708/2020 para 20 of the Order/Judgment dated 5.6.2007 in the case of Suresh Kumar (supra), noted in paragraph 16 hereinabove. The issue of termination/dismissal of the services of various employees attracted the attention of the respondents themselves. The respondents, after considering the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tulsiram Patel (supra) and the Order(s)/Judgment(s) passed by this Tribunal have issued another circular dated 11.9.2007 (Annexure A/13 of the rejoinder filed in OA 467/2020). In the said circular, they have emphasized that the disciplinary authority should pass a speaking order(s) based and supported by material/facts on record for dispensing with prior inquiry and before passing such order(s), the disciplinary authority should be satisfied that it is not practicable to hold an inquiry in view of threat, inducement, intimidation, affiliation with criminals etc. and the disciplinary authority has no option but to resort to Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. The said circular dated 11.9.2007 reads as under:-
"CIRCULAR No. /2007 An analysis has been done by PHQ in 38 cases pertaining to the period between 1.1.2000 to 31.12.05 where action under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India was taken against the defaulters. The analysis shows that out of the 38 cases, the action of the department has been upheld by CAT only in two cases and out of these two cases and only one case action was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and most of these cases have been remanded back in the Department by the Tribunal for initiating departmental inquiry.14 O.A. No.1708/2020
Though some cases are still pending in the Hon'ble High Court for decision, in a majority of cases, Disciplinary Authorities have resorted to Article 311 (2) (b) on assumptions and conjectures.
No speaking orders were passed based on and supported by material/facts on record for dispensing with prior enquiry. Orders for dismissal were passed arbitrarily violating Article 311 and the principles of natural justice.
Henceforth, it has been decided that whenever any Disciplinary Authority intends to invoke Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India, he must keep in mind the judgment in the case of UOI v.
Tulsi Ram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416. Only in cases where Disciplinary Authority is personally satisfied on the basis of material available on file that the case is of such a nature that it is not practicable to hold an enquiry in view of threat, inducement, intimidation, affiliation with criminals etc. and keeping in view of specific circumstances of the case it is not possible that PWs will depose against the defaulter and disciplinary authority has no option but to resort to Article 311 (2) (b) should such an action be taken.
Prior to such an order, a PE has to be conducted and it is essential to bring on record all such facts. It has also been decided that before passing on order under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India, Disciplinary Authority has to take prior concurrence of Spl. CP/Admn.
This has the approval of C.P., Delhi.
Sd/-
(S.N. SRIVASTAVA) JT. COMMISSIONER OF POLICCE:
HDQRS,: DELHI""15 O.A. No.1708/2020
"45. In the cases in hand, it is evident that in most of the cases preliminary inquiry had admittedly been done and regular enquiry had been dispensed with on the ground of possibility of witnesses likely to be unduly harassed or pressurized by the delinquent(s). In all the case FIRs, chargesheet had been filed, list of witnesses had been filed, a few witnesses had been examined or after tiral the accused(s) had been acquitted. In a few cases, the reason for dispensing with the enquiry had been given that the material had come on record to prove the criminal acts of the applicants. The reason had been also of threat to discipline, integrity and morality of the entire police force. On perusal of the impugned orders, it is evident that either the authorities have passed the orders of dispensing with the enquiry on jumping to the conclusion that delinquency or guilt of the applicants as alleged in the case FIRs stood proved even without regular enquiry in the departmental proceedings or trial in the concerned learned court(s). In most of the cases, conclusion about delinquency and commission of the offence(s) by the applicant(s) had been arrived merely on the basis of the preliminary inquiry report/investigation conducted by them and a copy of which had not been provided to them. In none of the aforesaid cases, there was any evidence/material before the authorities as evident from the impugned orders nor as such had been brought before us, to indicate that the applicants were having terror in their area and/or were having link with the terrorist(s) and they were involved in any case of espionage. Nothing has been recorded in the order(s) or shown to us that the applicant(s) had ever threatened or harassed any of the witness(es) and/or the prospective witness(es). There is no evidence or document to indicate that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case(s), any efforts was made to summon the witness(es) to lead the evidence against the 16 O.A. No.1708/2020 applicant(s) or anything was found that on regular enquiry or by summoning the witness(es) the relation with foreign countries was likely to be adversely affected. In the impugned order(s), the respondents have not disclosed that any effort was made by them to conduct the enquiry nor there is any evidence that in spite of their efforts, they had not been able to produce the witness(es) to lead evidence against the applicant(s). Rather the respondents have themselves filed the final challan(s) with a list of witness(es) before the concerned learned Court(s) and in a few cases, the accused(s) had been acquitted as well. In a few cases, witnesses have been examined before the concerned learned Court(s). Moreover, co-delinquent in the cases of Neeraj Kumar (supra) and Ramesh Kumar (supra), the similar impugned orders have been set aside by the Tribunal and the orders of the Tribunal have also attained finality.
46. It is found that the authorities while passing the impugned orders have very casually come to the conclusion that it would not be possible to conduct the departmental enquiry against the delinquent(s) and there being a possibility that witness(es) may not come forward to depose against the applicant(s). Such acts/orders of the respondents are not only in violation of the settled law but also of their own aforesaid circulars dated 21.3.1993 and 11.9.2007 as well. Hence, we are of the considered view that reasons given by the respondents for dispensing with the enquiry are not in consonance with the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts and followed by this Tribunal in a catena of cases, a few of which cases are referred to hereinabove.
47. It cannot be in dispute that there must be zero tolerance towards corruption and misconduct in public service. However, 17 O.A. No.1708/2020 without there being sufficient ground(s) to be recorded in writing, the protection given to the public servant of hearing under Article 311 of the Constitution cannot be taken away by the respondents. Our view is supported by the binding judicial precedents, referred to hereinabove."
12. A catena of cases of the Orders/Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and of this Tribunal on the issue as involved in the present case were also considered by this very Bench while deciding the case of Ct. Sumit Sharma (supra).
13. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide recent judgment dated 26.11.2021 in Civil Appeal No.9334/2010, titled Union of India and others vs. Ram Bahadur Yadav, has also considered the similar issued and held as follows:-
"9. From a reading of the above said Rule, it is clear that to pass an order as disciplinary measure, by adopting special procedure in certain cases, Rule 161 itself mandates recording of reasons. The normal rule for conducting an inquiry is governed by Rules 132, 148 and 153 of the RPF Rules. If the Authorities invoke special procedure, unless they record reasons, as contemplated in the Rule itself, no order could 7 have been passed by invoking Rule 161. At no point of time, appellants have produced file to show that any reasons are recorded in such file also. It is a settled legal position that when Rules contemplate method and manner to adopt special 18 O.A. No.1708/2020 procedure, it is mandatory on the part of the authorities to exercise such power by adhering to the Rule strictly. Dismissal of a regular member of Force, is a drastic measure. Rule 161, which prescribes dispensing with an inquiry and to pass order against a member of Force, cannot be invoked in a routine and mechanical manner, unless there are compelling and valid reasons. The dismissal order dated 22.10.1998 does not indicate any reason for dispensing with inquiry except stating that the respondent had colluded with the other Head Constable for theft of Non Judicial Stamp Papers. By merely repeating the language of the Rule in the order of dismissal, will not make the order valid one, unless valid and sufficient reasons are recorded to dispense with the inquiry. When 8 the Rule mandates recording of reasons, the very order should disclose the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry. The argument of learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that if file contains reasons, same is sufficient to maintain the order, deserves rejection. When inquiry is not conducted, member of the Force is entitled to know the reasons for dispensing with inquiry before passing any order as a disciplinary measure. The respondent was only a Head Constable during the relevant point of time and he was not in powerful position, so as to say that he would have influenced or threatened the witnesses, had the inquiry was conducted. The very fact that they have conducted confidential inquiry, falsifies the stand of the appellants that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. The words 'not reasonably practicable' as used in the Rule, are to be understood in a manner that in a given situation, ordinary and prudent man should come to conclusion that in such circumstances, it is not practicable. In the 9 present case, there appears no valid reason to dispense with inquiry and to invoke Rule 161 of the Rules. We are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court. In the case of Sahadeo Singh & Others v. Union of India & Others1, this Court has held that in the facts and 19 O.A. No.1708/2020 circumstances of the said case, it was not reasonably practicable to hold a fair inquiry, as such, it was held to be justifiable on the facts of the case. Whether it is practicable or not to hold an inquiry, is a matter to be considered with reference to the facts of each case and nature of charge, etc.
10. In the judgment in the case of Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab & Others2, this Court has categorically held that when the Authority is of the opinion that it is not reasonably practicable to hold inquiry, such finding shall be recorded on the subjective satisfaction by the authority, and same must be based on the objective criteria. In the aforesaid case, it is further held that 10 reasons for dispensing with the inquiry must be supported by material."
14. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the case of the applicant in the present OA is squarely covered by the Order/Judgment dated 10.2.2022 of this Tribunal in the case of Ct. Sumit Sharma (supra) as also of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment dated 26.11.2021 in Civil Appeal No.9334/2010, titled Union of India and others vs. Ram Bahadur Yadav. Further the learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed the fact that the case of co-delinquent, namely, Khushi Ram (supra), who was also involved in the said criminal case FIR, was partly allowed by this Tribunal vide Order/Judgment dated 11.4.2022 by following the Order/Judgment rendered by this Tribunal in the case of 20 O.A. No.1708/2020 Ct. Sumit Sharmai (supra) and the same has already been implemented by the respondents. For parity of reasons and to avoid conflicting view, we respectfully follow the same in the instant case as well.
15. In view of the above facts and circumstances and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present OA is partly allowed with the following directions:-
(i) Order(s) passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities dated 10.8.2018 (Annexure A/2) and 28.8.2019 (Annexure A/1) in the present OA are set aside with all consequential benefits to the applicant in accordance with the relevant rules and law on the subject; and
(ii) However, the respondents shall be at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant in accordance with the law.
16. In the facts and circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R.N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /ravi/