Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Yash Pal vs Comm. Of Police on 9 April, 2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No.745/2014
Reserved on: 28.03.2019
Pronounced on: 09.04.2019
Hon'ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr.S.N.Terdal, Member (J)
Yash Pal
PIS No. 28092102
Ex. Constable of Delhi Police
Aged about 28 years
S/o Shri Dhani Ram
R/o VPO Surehli, PS: Kosli,
Distt: Rewari, Haryana. ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Govt.of NCT of Delhi
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, I.P.Estate, New Delhi.
2. Special Commissioner of Police,
Armed Police, PHQ,
I.P.Estate, New Delhi.
3. D.C.P (Ist Bn.DAP)
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, I.P.Estate, New Delhi. ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr.Amit Anand)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. S.N.Terdal, Member (J):
We have heard Mr. Anil Singal, counsel for applicant and Mr.Amit Anand, counsel for respondents, perused the pleadings and all the documents produced by both the parties.
2. In this OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
1) To quash and set aside the impugned orders mentioned in Para-1 of the OA and direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits including promotion/seniority and arrears of pay.2 OA 745/2014
2) To award costs in favor of the applicant and pass any order or orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case."
3. The relevant facts of the case are that an FIR was filed against the applicant bearing no.71/2012 dated 16.04.2012 u/s 376 and 452 IPC for house trespass and for committing rape with respect to a woman and in the said criminal case he was arrested on 16.04.2012 and he was in judicial custody. Taking into account the facts of the case being of very serious nature and of tarnishing the image of the police department and the victim being a lady and her house being allegedly trespass before being raped, invoking the provisions of Article 311 (2)(b) of the Constitution of India, the applicant was dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 05.02.2013. In the above said FIR, the Court of Vijay Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari vide his judgment dated 09.05.2013 acquitted the accused. The applicant filed an appeal against his dismissal order. The appellate authority taking into account the grounds raised by the applicant in his appeal including his grounds raised on the basis of acquittal in the criminal case vide judgment dated 9.05.2013 by a reasoned and speaking order rejected the appeal vide order dated 24.12.2013. The counsel for the applicant vehemently and strenuously contended that as he has been acquitted in a full trial after conducting a criminal trial in the criminal case and that there being no grounds regarding not holding departmental enquiry and without recording any reasons about the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority for not holding departmental enquiry as required under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution, the disciplinary authority wrongly invoked the said provisions and passed the dismissal order dated 5.02.2013 and on that ground he submitted that the impugned order passed by the 3 OA 745/2014 disciplinary authority requires to be set aside and for the same grounds the order passed by the appellate authority also requires to be set aside.
4. The counsel for the respondents equally vehemently and strenuously contended referring to the fact recorded in the criminal proceedings that the applicant entered the house of the victim lady and forcibly gagged her and taken her to the bathroom and forcibly had physical relation with her and that in view of these facts even the Additional Sessions Judge had recorded that the name of the victim lady do not require to be disclosed. The relevant para of the judgment pointed out by the counsel for the respondents is extracted below:
"The epitome of the facts which needs a necessary mention for deciding the case of the prosecution and emanating from the record is that present case was registered against the aforesaid accused on the application of prosecutrix (name not being disclosed, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court, in case titled as, State of Punjab V. Gurmeet Singh and Others, 1996(1) RCR (Criminal) 533: AIR 1996(SC) 1393), to the effect that on 15.4.2012 at about 8.30pm member of her family had gone to fields and she was alone at her home, accused entered in her house and forcibly after gagging her, he was taken to bathroom of Rampat and forcibly had physical relation with her. Meanwhile her family members came and mother of prosecurix saw that she not there, then she started searching for her The accused ran away by pushing her mother, who made noise, then her family members came on the spot, accused had committed rape without her consent and prayed that necessary action be taken."
Though in the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority the facts regarding holding of the departmental enquiry being reasonably not practicable and regarding his satisfaction on the basis of those facts for not holding the departmental enquiry was not specifically recorded in the impugned order of dismissal but, however, in view of the facts recorded in the judgment in the criminal court, which is extracted above, we are of 4 OA 745/2014 the view that invoking the said provisions under Article 311 (2) (b) cannot be interfered with.
5. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
( S.N.Terdal) (Nita Chowdhury) Member (J) Member (A) 'sk' ...