Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vijender Singh (Inspr. Dp) No.D/3258 vs Commissioner Of Police on 8 December, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.4327 of 2011 This the 8th day of December, 2011 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE MRS. (DR.) VEENA CHHOTRAY, MEMBER (A) Vijender Singh (Inspr. DP) No.D/3258, R/o H. No.243, Police Colony, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-52. Applicant ( By Shri Nasir Ahmed, Advocate ) Versus 1. Commissioner of Police, Delhi, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi-110002. 2. Shri Satish Chandra (IPS), Special Commissioner of Police, Armed Police, Delhi, PHQ, IP Estate, ITO, New Delhi through Commissioner of Police. 3. Enquiry Officer, DCP Shri Parveez Ahmed, DCP, 3rd Bn., DAP, Vikaspuri Police Lines Complex, Delhi Police, New Delhi-110018 through Commissioner of Police. Respondents O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Vijender Singh, the applicant herein, an Inspector in Delhi Police, on the same allegations, is facing criminal trial as also departmental enquiry. The applicant is involved in a case registered against him under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is a trap case. The applicant is alleged to have been caught red-handed while accepting bribe of Rs.3000/-. In addition to facing criminal trial, the applicant, as mentioned above, is also facing departmental enquiry, which has been ordered against him by Special Commissioner of Police, Armed Police, Delhi, vide order dated 01.08.2011. In the present Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, prayer of the applicant is to keep the departmental enquiry in abeyance till such time the criminal case against him culminates into verdict of acquittal or conviction, as the case may be.
2. As a general law, it is too well settled that criminal and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously. In a case pertaining to an Inspector in Delhi Police, in OA No.3519/2009 in the matter of Inspr. Rameshwar Khatri v Government of NCT of Delhi through Commissioner of Police & others, decided on 10.12.2009, we held so. The only exception to the law as mentioned above, is that where the questions of law and facts involved may be intricate, the departmental proceedings can be put on hold, but as to whether the questions of law and facts are complicated, would depend upon the facts of each ease, and there is no straitjacket formula for the same. Our decision as referred to above, has already been affirmed by the Honble High Court of Delhi. Another Original Application bearing OA No.2816/2008 in the matter of Sukhdev Singh & another v Government of NCT of Delhi & others, came to be disposed of by the Full Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 18.02.2011. The question raised in the case aforesaid was that in view of the provisions contained in rules 11, 12 and 15 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, which are peculiar to the service, the departmental enquiry shall have to be kept in abeyance. We answered the question framed by us in the concluding part of the judgment as follows:
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 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.
10. In view of our findings on the first issue, there would be no need to put on hold the final orders in departmental proceedings awaiting the decision of the criminal court. The applicant would persist with the prayer of keeping the departmental proceedings in abeyance only based upon the interim order dated 24.09.2011 passed by the Honble High Court in WP(C) No.2793/2011, which appears to be a writ against the orders passed by the Full Bench of this Tribunal, even though not so specifically stated. The interim order reads as follows:
Issue notice on the question of admission and final disposal.
Mr. Anjum Javed, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. As far as the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, no notice need be issued. Counter affidavit be filed within six weeks hence.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within three weeks therefrom.
Matter be listed on 1st September, 2011.C.M. No.5948/2011
This is an application for stay. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that any action taken by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the disciplinary authority shall be subject to result of the writ petition.
The application is accordingly disposed of. It may be seen that as regards stay, the Honble Bench has stated that any action taken by the enquiry officer as well as by the disciplinary authority shall be subject to result of the writ petition, which clearly means that the departmental proceedings may go on, but the result thereof would abide the final outcome of the writ petition.
3. Even though, interim orders cannot be pressed into service as precedents, but considering the fact that against the Full Bench of the Tribunal a writ is pending, we pass the same order as has been passed by the High Court. This Original Application is thus disposed of with direction that any action taken by the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority shall be subject to the result of WP (C) No.2793/2011 in the matter of Sukhdev Singh (supra). The applicant, we may clarify, need not file any writ petition against our orders passed today, as we have already mentioned that the action taken by the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority shall be subject to the writ petition filed in the case of Sukhdev Singh.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/