Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ajeet Singh vs Union Of India on 12 March, 2026
1
Item No. 25/ C-II O.A. No. 4433/2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 4433/2025
This the 12th day of March, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
Constable (Exe.) Ajeet Singh
PIS No.-29990041, Belt No-1645/Crime
S/o Late Sh. Jay Prakash
R/o VPO: Naya Bans,
PS: Narela, Delhi
Group:- C
Aged around 45 years
Last Posting at:
Crime Branch, Delhi
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Sourabh Ahuja)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs
North Block, New Delhi
2. Commissioner of Police (Delhi Police),
Jai Singh Road near Bangla Sahib Gurudwara,
Delhi
3. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime (HQ)), Delhi
Police Through Commissioner of Police (Delhi Police). Jai
Singh Road near Bangla Sahib Gurudwara, Delhi
4. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime & Railways), Delhi
Police Through Commissioner of Police (Delhi Police), Jai
Singh Road near Bangla Sahib Gurudwara, Delhi
5. Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police (Delhi Police), Jai Singh
Road near Bangla Sahib Gurudwara, Delhi
1.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Dhananjai Rana)
KSHITIJ
KSHITIJ SAXENA
SAXENA2026.03.19
14:56:12+05'30'
2
Item No. 25/ C-II O.A. No. 4433/2025
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) By way of the present OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief:
"(a) Quash and set aside impugned orders dated 17.09.2025 qua the applicant. And
(b) Quash and set aside / set at naught/ recall/ revisit the orders dated 05.09.2012 and Appellate Authority Order dated 26.08.2015. And
(c) Reinstate the applicant back in service from the date of his dismissal with all consequential benefits viz. seniority, promotion, back wages etc. And
(d) Consider the case of the applicant (on his acquittal on merits) in terms of Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rule, 1980 read with Full Bench judgment of this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 2816 of 2008 (titled as Sukhdev Singh vs. Delhi Police). And
(e) Award cost in favor of the Applicant and against the respondents. And/Or
(f) Pass any further order, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The applicant's claim has been contested by the respondents by filing counter reply. Thereafter, the applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating his claim.
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance we have also perused the pleadings available on record.
KSHITIJ
KSHITIJ SAXENA
SAXENA2026.03.19
14:56:12+05'30'
3
Item No. 25/ C-II O.A. No. 4433/2025
4. It is undisputed that the applicant's name, while working as Constable (Executive), was involved in three criminal cases vide FIR Nos. 692/12 under Sections 364-A IPC Police Station Kotwali, Bijnour, U.P., No. 741/2012 under Sections 171, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC Police Station Milak, Distt. Rampur, UP and FIR No. 742/2012 under Sections 25 Arms Act, Police Station Milak, District Rampur, UP.
5. The applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 08.08.2012. After taking into consideration all the material facts that transpired during inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority arrived at a conclusion that it would not be practical to hold a disciplinary inquiry against the applicant and his associates as no one would come forward to depose against him fearing for life at his hands and adverse consequences. The Disciplinary Authority inflicted a penalty of dismissal from service on the applicant by invoking the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India and his suspension during the period from 08.08.2012 to 04.09.2012 was also decided as period not spent on duty for all intents and purposes vide order dated 05.09.2012.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the applicant preferred an appeal, however, the same was also rejected by the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by such order of Disciplinary Authority and that of the Appellate Authority, the applicant approached this Tribunal vide OA No. KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA SAXENA2026.03.19 14:56:12+05'30' 4 Item No. 25/ C-II O.A. No. 4433/2025 2536/2015, which was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order/judgment dated 22.11.2019. Subsequent thereto, the applicant stood acquitted by the learned Trial Court(s) in the aforesaid three case FIRs and such acquittal of the applicant attained finality. In this background, the applicant submitted a representation dated 12.02.2024 (Annexure A-6) followed by another supplementary representation dated 16.04.2025 seeking his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits in light of the provisions of Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 (herein after referred to as the Rules) read with the judgment of a larger Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 2186/2008 titled Sukhdev Singh Vs. Delhi Police. Such representations of the applicant have been rejected by the respondents vide the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 (Annexure A-1) which has led the applicant to approach this Tribunal by way of the present OA seeking the relief as reproduced herein above.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is passed in a mechanical and cryptic manner and therefore the same is not sustainable in law.
8. The second limb of the argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the respondents have stated in their counter reply, particularly in para 4 (viii), that the applicant's acquittal in the aforesaid criminal cases is not required KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA SAXENA2026.03.19 14:56:12+05'30' 5 Item No. 25/ C-II O.A. No. 4433/2025 to be considered in view of the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules. He submits that such contention of the respondents is misconceived and contrary to what has been laid down by this Tribunal in Sukhdev Singh (Supra).
9. Mr. Ahuja, learned counsel for the applicant, also places reliance on order/judgment of this Tribunal in OA No. 4446/2024 dated 03.02.2025 in the case of HC (Driver) Kuldeep Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. and has placed a copy of such order/judgment on record.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Rana, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, has vehemently opposed the claim of the applicant. He submits that automatic reinstatement of a Delhi Police personnel after his acquittal in the relevant case(s) is not provided under Rule 12 of the Rules and accordingly, the claim of the applicant for reinstatement after his acquittal in the said criminal cases has rightly not been acceded to by the competent authority. He further submits that in Sukhdev Singh (Supra) itself it is ruled by the Tribunal for reinstatement of a dismissed employee, his acquittal must be clean of all the criminal cases to invoke Rule 12 of the Rules and in the present case the acquittal of the applicant does not entitle him to reinstatement, particularly when his acquittal was not on the basis of clean exoneration but due to benefit of doubt.
KSHITIJ
KSHITIJ SAXENA
SAXENA2026.03.19
14:56:12+05'30'
6
Item No. 25/ C-II O.A. No. 4433/2025
11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
12. The impugned order dated 17.09.2025 (Annexure A-1) reads as under:
"Sh. Ajeet Singh, Ex-Const.
R/o, 719, Gomukh Apartments, Koshambhi, Ghaziabad, UP. R/o Vill. Gazipur, P.O. Sikandarabad, Distt. Bulandahar, U.P. Subject:- Request for re-instatement in service with all consequential benefits in r/o Const. (Ex.) Ajeet Singh, No. 1645/Crime (29999041).
Please refer to your application dairy No. 722/HAP/Crime, dated 17.04.2025 on the subject cited above.
The application dated 16.04.2025 regarding re-instatement in service with all consequential benefits alongwith its enclosures submitted by you, has been considered in length, but the same could not be acceded to.
(SANJEEV KUMAR YADAV), IPS DY. COMMISSIONEER OF POLICE:
CRIME (HQ): DELHI"
13. Undoubtedly, the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 appears to have been passed in a mechanical manner inasmuch as none of the grounds pleaded in the aforesaid representations of the applicant have been considered and dealt with.
14. Rule 12 of the Rules reads as under:
"Rule 12: Action following judicial acquittal.
When a police officer has been tried and acquitted by a criminal court, he shall not be punished departmentally on the same charge or on a different charge upon the evidence cited in the criminal case, whether actually led or not unless :--
(a) the criminal charge has failed on technical grounds, or KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA SAXENA2026.03.19 14:56:12+05'30' 7 Item No. 25/ C-II O.A. No. 4433/2025
(b) in the opinion of the court, or on the Deputy Commissioner of Police the prosecution witnesses have been won over; or
(c) the court has held in its judgment that an offence was actually committed and that suspicion rests upon the police officer concerned; or
(d) the evidence cited in the criminal case discloses facts unconnected with the charge before the court which justify departmental proceedings on a different charge; or
(e) additional evidence for departmental proceedings is available."
15. The provision of the aforesaid Rules clearly indicates when a Police Officer has been tried and acquitted by a criminal court, he shall not be punished departmentally on the same charge or on a different charge upon the evidence cited in the criminal case unless the case of the punished Police Officer falls under any of the exceptions under Rule 12 of the Rules.
16. Para 13 of the order/judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Head Constable (Driver) Kuldeep Singh (Supra) reads as under:
13. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the OA is allowed with the following directions:-
(i) The impugned order dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure A/1) is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The respondents are directed to consider the applicant's representation dated 19.10.2022 afresh in the light of the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules, read with the judgement of this Tribunal in the case of Sukhdev Singh (supra) as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahabir Prasad (supra).
(iii) On such consideration, if the case of the applicant is found to be not falling under any of exceptions in Rule 12 of the Rules, the applicant shall be entitled for all the consequential benefits.
KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA SAXENA2026.03.19 14:56:12+05'30' 8 Item No. 25/ C-II O.A. No. 4433/2025
(iv) The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
(v) However, in the facts and circumstances, cost is made easy."
17. In view of the aforesaid, the present OA is allowed with the following orders:
i. The impugned order dated 17.09.2025 (Annexure A-1) is set aside;
ii. The respondents are directed to consider the applicant's aforesaid representations dated 12.02.2024 (Annexure A-6), followed by another supplementary representation dated 16.04.2025, afresh in light of the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules read with what is held by this Tribunal in Sukhdev Singh (Supra);
iii. On such consideration, if the case of the applicant is found to be not falling under any of the exceptions under Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, he shall be entitled for all consequential benefits; iv. The aforesaid directions shall be complied by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
KSHITIJ
KSHITIJ SAXENA
SAXENA2026.03.19
14:56:12+05'30'
9
Item No. 25/ C-II O.A. No. 4433/2025
18. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(B. Anand) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ks/
KSHITIJ
KSHITIJ SAXENA
SAXENA2026.03.19
14:56:12+05'30'