Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Jasbir Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 7 February, 2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA 741/2014
Reserved on 30.01.2019
Pronounced on 07.02.2019
Hon'ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. S.N.Terdal, Member (J)
Jagbir Singh (PIS No. 28902252)
Constable of Delhi Police,
Aged about 42 years,
S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan,
R/o VPO: Kablana,
Distt: Jhajjar, Haryana. ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. The Special Commissioner of Police,
Armed Police, PHQ, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi.
3. DCP (Ist Bn. DAP)
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi. ... Respondents
(By Advocate Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. S.N.Terdal, Member (J):
We have heard Mr.Anil Singal, counsel for applicant and Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi, 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 restore to the applicant his original service and pay with all 2 OA 741/2014 consequential benefits including promotion/seniority and arrears of pay.
2) To award costs in favour 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 on the allegation of the applicant having demanded Rs.800/-PM to allow the parking of one the vehicles of Shri Anoop Kumar, a trap was organized by Anti Corruption Branch and he was caught red-handed. The said allegations are extracted below:
"It is alleged that on 20.01.2005, Anoop Kumar S/o Sashpal Singh R/o M 1/20 Budh Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi-41 reported in A.C.Branch that he is driver of bus No. DL 1PB- 0410, Route No. 182, plying from Sukhbir Nagar to I.S.B.T., Kashmere Gate, Ct. Jasbir Singh posted at I.S.B.T. Kashmere Gate demanded Rs.800/- per month to allow the parking of his bus at I.S.B.T., Kashmere Gate, which was to be paid on 20.01.2005.
On this, a trap was laid by the officials of A.C.Branch, Delhi and constable Jasbir Singh (Traffic Police Civil Line Circle) was caught red-handed while demanding, accepting and obtaining Rs.800/- from the complainant Sh.Anoop Singh as illegal gratification in the presence of panch witness Sh.V.K.Gupta, Head Clerk, Employment Exchange, Vishwash Nagar, Delhi."
That on the basis of the above said allegation, a case FIR no. 7/05 dated 20.01.2005 u/s 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, under P.S. A.C Branch was registered against the applicant. In the said criminal case, the Court of Shri Rakesh Siddhartha, Special Judge (PC-Act)-06, Tis Hazari, Delhi vide his judgment dated 31.01.2011 acquitted the applicant giving benefit of doubt. Subsequently, a departmental enquiry was initiated on the basis of the same allegations vide an order dated 21.02.2011 and before the inquiry officer the applicant had taken a stand that he was acquitted though on technical ground 3 OA 741/2014 namely giving benefit of doubt. Though the enquiry officer held that the allegations are proved, but with respect to the contentions under Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, the Inquiry Officer recorded that it is for the disciplinary authority to decide with respect to decision under the above said Rule 12. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority after considering the evidence in the inquiry report and the representation made on the inquiry report and after hearing the applicant in orderly room on 15.01.2013 passed a penalty order of forfeiture of two years approved service permanently on the applicant vide his order dated 21.03.2013. But no order was passed regarding considerations of the plea of the applicant with respect to Rule 12 of the said rules. The appeal filed by the applicant was also dismissed by the appellate authority after taking into account all the evidence before the inquiry officer, findings of the inquiry officer and that of the disciplinary authority and also hearing him in the orderly room on 18.06.2013 vide order dated 28.06.2013.
4. The counsel for the applicant vehemently and strenuously submitted that on the same facts and on the same allegations, the applicant was tried in criminal court and the criminal court, namely, in the court of Shri Rakesh Siddhartha, Special Judge (PC-Act)-06, Tis Hazari, Delhi vide his judgment dated 31.01.2011 acquitted the applicant giving benefit of doubt and in view of Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 the punishment orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority require to be reviewed. In support of his contention the counsel for the applicant relied on the orders passed by Full Bench of this Tribunal in Sukhdev Singh & Another Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others (OA 4 OA 741/2014 No. 2816/2008 with connected cases) decided on 18.02.2011. The relevant portion of which is extracted below:
"9. In view of the discussion made above, we hold that there is no bar, express of implied, in the Rules of 1980 for holding simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings. However, in case of departmental proceedings may culminate into an order of punishment earlier in point of time than that of the verdict in criminal case, and the acquittal is such that departmental proceedings cannot be held for the reasons as mentioned in rule 12, the order of punishment shall be re-visited. The judicial verdict would have precedence over decision in departmental proceedings and the subordinate rank would be restored to his status with consequential reliefs."
5. In view of the orders passed by the Full Bench of this Tribunal, we are of the view that the punishment orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority require to be re- visited.
6. Accordingly, OA is allowed and the impugned order are required to be set aside and we hereby set aside all the orders namely dated 21.02.2011, 9.11.2012, 21.3.2013 and 26.06.2013. The respondents are at liberty to reconsider their punishment orders in the light of the provisions of Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. No order as to costs.
(S.N.Terdal) (Nita Chowdhury) Member (J) Member (A) 'sk' .....