Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shekhar vs Delhi Police on 10 July, 2025
1
Item No.62/ C-3 OA No.3058/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 3058/2024
This the 10th day of July, 2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K Gupta, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Shekhar, Aged about 39 years, Group "C"
S/o Shamsuddin
R/o #211, Telion Wali Gali, Salahpur,
Majra Dabas- Delhi
... Applicant
(By Advocate : Ms. Anooshka Bhalla)
Versus
Office of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001
...Respondent
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Sinha)
2
Item No.62/ C-3 OA No.3058/2024
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Ms. Pratima K Gupta, Member (J):-
The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.2020, whereby he has been dismissed from service by invoking the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. The statutory appeal preferred by the applicant has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 04.05.2024.
Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has preferred the present OA seeking following reliefs:-
"a) Set Aside the orders dated 28.09.2020 passed by the DCP, North-West District and the order dated 04.05.2024 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Police, Northern Range, Delhi.
b) Direct the Respondents to appoint the Applicant in Delhi Police.
c) Grant any such other order or further relief under the facts and circumstances of the case as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems just and equitable in favor of the Applicant.
d) To reinstate Applicant alongwith all consequential benefits including seniority and back wages."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant draws attention to the order dated 28.09.2020 (Annexure R-2) and points out that there are as many as 4 persons including the applicant namely, Sapan, SI (Exe.), Sonu Rathi, HC(Exe.), Harphool Meena, HC(Exe.) who were dismissed from service by a common order invoking provisions of Article 311(2)(b). He submits that the HC Harphool Meena has approached this 3 Item No.62/ C-3 OA No.3058/2024 Tribunal in OA No. 1322/2024 wherein the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 12.02.2025 has allowed the OA. She submits that while allowing the OA, the Tribunal has quashed the order dated 28.09.2020, that has been impugned in the present OA. The respondents, in compliance of the order dated 12.02.2025 have reinstated HC Harphool Meena by an order dated 11.03.2025, and therefore, for the reasons of parity, the applicant is entitled for the same relief.
3. Mr. Amit Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents, vehemently opposes the present OA. He submits, the applicant in OA No. 1322/2024 played a subordinate role in the deemed conspiracy to effect the recoveries as detailed in the impugned order. The team was, in fact, led by the present applicant, and the applicant in OA No. 1322/2024 stands on a different footing. To strengthen his arguments, he refers to paras 13, 14 and 15 of the counter reply, which are reproduced as under:-
"13. That the constitutional protection granted by Article 311 saves government servants from hire and fire and, as a matter of rule, a government servant cannot be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. However, the Constitution itself carves out an exception in the 2nd provision to Article 311(2), and enumerates situations wherein the holding of an inquiry under sub Article (2) 4 Item No.62/ C-3 OA No.3058/2024 of Article 311 may be dispensed with. The three situations wherein the holding of the inquiry may be dispensed with are following:
(a) Where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or
(b) Where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or
(c) Where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.
14. That it is well settled law that the Principles of natural justice have been expressly excluded by the constitutional provision, namely, the second proviso to clause (2) of the Article 311 and there is no scope of reinforcing it by a side door to provide once again the same inquiry which the constitutional provisions has expressly prohibited. The second proviso is based on the public policy and is in public interest and for the public good and the constitution makers who inserted it in article 311 (2) were the best persons to decide as to whether such an exclusionary provision should be there and the situations in which this proviso should apply. Where the second proviso applies, though there is no prior opportunity to the government servant to defend himself against the charges made against him, he has the opportunity to show in an appeal filed by him that the charges made against him are not true. This would be sufficient compliance with the requirements of principle of natural justice. Refer: Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416.
15. That it is also well settled that realms of judicial review are limited to the decision-making process and not open to the merit of the decisions. The courts can look into the material on the basis of which a particular decision has been reached however since the decision arrived at is under exclusive domain of the decision making authority which in turn is based on subjective satisfaction of the authority, therefore, in view of lack of judicially manageable standards to scrutinize the decision, the courts refrain from transgressing into 5 Item No.62/ C-3 OA No.3058/2024 administrative domain of decision-making. Refer:
S.R.Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1."
4.1 Heard learned counsel for parties in great detail.
4.2 We have gone through the impugned order, the operative portion of the same would confirm that by the said order along with the applicant three other delinquents were dismissed invoking the provisions of Article 311(2)(b). For better appreciation, the relevant portion is reproduced herein below:-
"From the statement of the witnesses, analysis of CDRs & CCTV footage and other circumstantial evidence placed on record. It has surfaced that on 11.09 2020, Appellant and Ex SI (Exe) Sapan, No D-5060, Ex, HC Harphool Meena No 741/NW, and Ex HC Sonu Rathi No 558/NW of PS Jahangir Puri recovered approximately 164 kgs of 'Gaanja' (a commercial quantity) at the instance of the accused Anil Kumar. The above staff conspired and connived with each other to book the accused Anil Kumar in a smaller quantity of 920 grams which as per law is considered to be for personal consumption and is a bailable offence. For this minimization of the offence, they also took illegal gratification of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs from Rita Devi, mother of accused Anil. Not only this, they also misappropriated the recovered contraband 'Gaanja' weighing approximately 164 kgs and supposedly sold it to drug peddlers. Appellant, IO of the case and others were called several times to confront them with the witnesses, CCTV footage and their CDRs but despite repeated directions, they did not join the Enquiry to depose themselves, which further give credence to their complicity in the act."
4.3 There is no dispute that the Head Constable, Harphool Singh has approached this Tribunal in OA No. 1322/2024 and the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 12.02.2025 had allowed the OA. The submission of learned 6 Item No.62/ C-3 OA No.3058/2024 counsel for the respondents was well considered at the time of passing the order dated 12.02.2025. For the sake of better appreciation, the order dated 12.02.2025 is reproduced herein below:-
"In this O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
"This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned Order No.8111- 8211/HAP9P-1)/NWD dated 28.9.2020 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant back in service with all consequential benefits including seniority, promotion and pay & allowances."
2. The brief undisputed factual matrix of the case is that the applicant was proceeded against by the respondents by way of a preliminary inquiry for being involved in an incident on 11.09.2022 wherein the applicant - HC Harphool Meena along with two police personnel, namely SI Shekhar and HC Sonu Rathi, had recovered about 920 grams of ganja. However, this team had actually recovered 164 kgs. Ganja from the accused Anil Kumar but the above mentioned police personnel had connived with each other to book the said accused Anil Kumar as if he was only carrying smaller quantity of 920 grams, which, as per law, is considered to be for personal consumption and therefore, is a bailable offence. The above police personnel including the applicant had allegedly taken illegal gratification of Rs. 1.5 lakhs from the mother of the accused for minimizing the offence and booking the accused under bailable offence. For this, an FIR No.423/2020 dated 11.09.2020 u/s 20(b)(ii)A NDPS Act was registered against the above police personnel, including the applicant. The respondent no.1, who is the disciplinary authority in this case, had invoked Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India which enables the respondents to dispense with the inquiry by way of disciplinary proceedings, and had straightway imposed a punishment of 7 Item No.62/ C-3 OA No.3058/2024 dismissal from service.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant, while submitting his arguments, states that Article 311(2)(b), cannot be straightway invoked unless and until detailed reasoning for invoking this article is contained in the order of the disciplinary authority. He drew our attention to the following paras in the order o the disciplinary authority:-
"Therefore, the undersigned is satisfied that the acts and grave misconduct of defaulters SI Shekhar No.D-4354 (PIS No.16080258), SI Sapan No.D-5060 (PIS No.28040139), HC Sonu Rathi No.558/NW (PIS No.28082348) and HC Harphool Meena No.741/NW(PIS No.28031726) attracts the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India and makes them completely unfit for police service.
In order to send a clear message to such undesirable elements in the police force and to maintain discipline as well as to prevent recurrence of such an incident, it has become absolutely imperative to dismiss the defaulters as they are completely unfit for police service. Moreover, their future retention in the department after their involvement in the above mentioned case is absolutely detrimental to public interest."
and states that the respondents have imposed the harshest punishment of dismissal from service without giving an opportunity to the applicant to put forth his defense and held the applicant as guilty which is violative of the principles of natural justice.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that other two police personnel, who were also involved for the same offence, had all approached this Tribunal and this Tribunal have allowed their OAs. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant fairly submits that inasmuch as the other two police personnel, who obtained relief from this Tribunal and were also involved for the same offence and were similarly placed, have been let off, the same treatment should be accorded to the present applicant also.
5. In addition, the learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon a catena of 8 Item No.62/ C-3 OA No.3058/2024 judgments whereby the courts have struck down the action of the respondents in arbitrarily invoking the provisions of Section 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India to short cut the requirement of conducting a detailed inquiry and summarily dismissing the delinquents as illegal and in support thereof, he has quoted the following judgments of this Tribunal:-
(i) Sumit Sharma Vs. GNCT (OA No. 1383/2020 with batch matters);
(ii) Neeraj Kumar vs. Delhi Police (OA No. 2097/19)
(iii) Inspector Jasmohinder Singh Vs. Delhi Police (OA No. 2867/2019)
(iv) Inspector Dharmender Singh Dangi Vs. Commissioner of Police (OA 702/19)
(v) Tara Dutt vs. GNCTD (OA 1114/18)
(vi) Suresh Kumar vs. GNCTD (OA 2500/06)
(vii) Vikas vs. GNCTD (OA 1102/15)
(viii) Kirpal Singh vs. GNCTD (OA 1912/15)
(ix) Rajbir Singh vs. Commissioner of Police (OA 4246/14)
(x) Ashwani Kumar vs. Commissioner of Police (OA 217/16)
(xi) Om Parkash vs. the Commissioner of Police (OA 2297/15) (xiu) Bhopal Singh vs. Commissioner of Police (OA 2295/21)
6. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 14.08.2024 wherein it is held that "Before parting with this matter, we hereby direct the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to personally look into such matters and take proper decision so that Courts/Tribunals are not burdened with a case where departmental inquiries can be initiated. We hereby make it clear that if such like petitions are filed in future wherein dismissal or suspension orders are passed without holding any enquiry without any plausible reasoning, certainly heavy cost will be imposed and that too, will be recovered from the Officer, who takes such type of unwarranted decision."
7. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contentions of the applicant. However, in the 9 Item No.62/ C-3 OA No.3058/2024 course of hearing on 28.01.2025, learned counsel for the respondents stated that no separate reply to the OA was required to be filed and the contents of his reply to MA No. 1202/2024 seeking condonation of delay filed by the respondents may also be treated as part and parcel of the reply to the OA.
8. Under the above facts and circumstances, inasmuch as for the same incident the facts of which have been outlined in the applicant's version of the case in para 2 of this order to other police personnel, namely, HC Sonu Rathi (OA No.3824/2023) and SI Sapan (OA No. 3884/2023), the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal (in which one of us namely, Hon'ble Mr. RN Singh was a Judicial Member) has allowed the OAs and as both those OAs involved the alleged accomplices of the present applicant and ganja dealer, the same relief given to other alleged accomplices is granted to the present applicant in this case and accordingly, we allow the present OA with the following directions:-
(i) the impugned order dated 28.09.2020 (Annexure A-1) is set aside;
(ii) the applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and law on the subject;
(iii) the respondents shall implement the aforesaid directions within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of this order; and
(v) the respondents shall be at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, if they so decide, however, in accordance with law.
9. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. "
4.4 The facts of instant OA are not just similar but identical to the OA No. 1322/2024. As the basic facts recorded hereinabove are not in dispute and in light of the decision of the coordinate bench in OA No. 1322/2024, which has been the case of the co-accused of the applicant, we have no reason to take a divergent view, judicial discipline binds us to take 10 Item No.62/ C-3 OA No.3058/2024 the similar view as already been taken in OA No. 1322/2024 on 12.02.2025.
4.5 In view of what has been recorded hereinabove, the OA is allowed with the following directions:-
(i) The impugned order dated 28.09.2020 (Annexure A-1) is set aside;
(ii) The applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and law on the subject;
(iii) The respondents shall implement the aforesaid directions within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of this order; and
(iv) The respondents shall be at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, if they so decide, however, in accordance with law.
4.6. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) (Pratima K Gupta)
Member (A) Member (J)
/daya/