Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Yogesh Kumar vs Comm. Of Police on 16 March, 2026
1
OA No. 698/2019
Item No. 63 (C-2)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 698/2019
This the 16th day of March, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Yogesh Kumar, Sub-Inspector (Exe.)
No. D/4528, PIS No.28061470 Group 'C'
S/o Shri Om Prakash,
Aged about 36 years
R/o C-32, PHP, Sector-16B
AKANSHA
2026.04.06 Dwarka, New Delhi
AKANSHA
16:46:48 Presently posted at P.S. Kirti Nagar
+05'30' ...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Nilansh Gaur)
Versus
1. Government of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate,
Delhi - 110002
2. Joint Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police
Western Range, Police Head Quarter,
MSO Building, New Delhi
3. Deputy Commissioner of Police
Police Station Rajouri Garden (West District)
New Delhi - 110028
.....Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Jalaj Agarwal)
2
OA No. 698/2019
Item No. 63 (C-2)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J) In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):-
"(a) To Call for the records and Set aside the impugned order of penalty, at ANNEXURE A-1 and also the impugned Appellate order at ANNEXURE A-2 as well as the findings of the enquiry officer at ANNEXURE A-3; and AKANSHA (b) Direct the respondents to restore the reduced pay of the 2026.04.06 AKANSHA 16:46:48 applicant with arrears and drop the proceedings without any +05'30' adverse effect on any of the service conditions and benefits of the applicant; and
(c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate, in the circumstances of the case."
2. The applicant is aggrieved by an order dated 27.07.2018 (Annexure A-1), whereby a penalty has been inflicted upon him for permanent forfeiture of two years approved service (permanently) with cumulative effect entailing proportionate reduction in his pay with immediate effect. The applicant is also aggrieved by the order dated 04.12.2018, issued by the respondents, whereby the respondents have rejected the statutory appeal of the applicant. Under challenge is also an inquiry report dated 18.05.2018 (Annexure A-3) submitted by the Inquiry Officer in the matter.
3. The claim of the applicant has been contested by the respondents by filing counter reply. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating his claim and the grounds pleaded in support thereof.
3OA No. 698/2019 Item No. 63 (C-2)
4. We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and with their assistance, we have also perused the pleadings available on record.
5. It is undisputed that while working as Sub-Inspector under the respondents, the applicant was entrusted investigation of a case FIR being FIR No. 319/16, u/s 328/379/411/34 IPC. The applicant completed the AKANSHA investigation in the said case. The Assistant Commissioner of 2026.04.06 AKANSHA 16:46:48 +05'30' Police (ACP) framed charge against the applicant for deficiencies and shortcomings in the investigation conducted by him in the said case FIR. Based on the findings returned by the IO, the disciplinary authority has inflicted the penalty vide impugned order. The applicant is stated to have preferred his statutory appeal against the order passed by the disciplinary authority. However, the same has been rejected by the appellate authority vide order impugned in the present OA.
6. Sh. Nilansh Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the framing of charges is misconceived, and done by incompetent authority, inasmuch as, it has been done by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) and not by the competent disciplinary authority, i.e., Deputy Commissioner of Police (hereinafter referred as DCP). To elaborate, he further submits that whether the investigation is faulted or not, it can be judged only by the competent Trial Court, which is expected to take cognizance on the challan/charge sheet 4 OA No. 698/2019 Item No. 63 (C-2) filed by the Police. He has clarified that otherwise also, shortcomings in the inquiry conducted by the applicant could have been alleged/concluded only by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) and not by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP). To further strengthen his submission, he submits that on the investigation conducted by the applicant only, the persons accused in the FIR, have been convicted and sentenced by learned Trial Court vide AKANSHA 2026.04.06 AKANSHA 16:46:48 order/judgment dated 17.12.2025. He has placed on record a +05'30' copy of such order/judgment, after supplying a copy thereof to the learned counsel for the respondents. He has further argued that otherwise also from the provisions of Rule 13 of Delhi Police Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1980, it is apparent that on the conduct of the Police Officer, only the competent Court can comment and pass a stricture and not the ACP. The second limb of the argument on behalf of the applicant is that the appellate authority has passed the impugned appellate order in mechanical manner without considering and dealing with any of the grounds pleaded by the applicant in his statutory appeal.
7. On the other hand, Sh. Jalaj Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the claim of the applicant. He submits that inquiry has been initiated and concluded by the competent authority by following the principles of natural justice and in conformity with the 5 OA No. 698/2019 Item No. 63 (C-2) provisions of the relevant rules. In this background interference in the impugned order is not warranted by this Tribunal, while invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsels for both the parties.
9. Admittedly, the Charge framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) reads as under:-
AKANSHA 2026.04.06 AKANSHA 16:46:48 "I, Jagjit Singh, E.O.ACP Operation Cell,West District New +05'30' Delhi hereby charge you S.l.Yogesh, D-4528 (PIS No.28061470).Whereas, it is alleged against you that on 21.12.16, a case vide FIR No. 319/16,u/s 328/379/411/34 IPC was registered on the statement of Ct.Krishan No.2154/W PS Mayapuri wherein he stated that on 21.12.16 at 8.20 PM while he was on patrol in his beat, he noticed that one youngster Sunny was chasing a man and shouting "Chor-Chor" .He also joined the chase and managed to catch the suspect identified as Bharat Mukhiya r/o Badli. On enuiry, Sunny reported that Bharat and his two associates has administered some sedatives to an e-rickshaw puller and when he fell unconscious,his e-rickshaw was taken away by them.The unconscious e-rickshaw puller/owner identified as Hansraj aged 19 years was rushed to DOU Hospital.
After registration of case, investigation was conducted by you and accused Bharat Mukhiya was arrested on 22.12.16 and at his instance on 24.12.16 another accused Kanhaiya was also arrested and the case property i.e e- rikshaw was recovered from him. Both were produced before the court and sent to JC.After that no meaningful investigation was done by you being IO of the case and on 19.02.17,You put up the final report before ACP/Mayapuri to forward the same to court and informed that accused persons are in J/C.The case was checked by ACP/Mayapuri and following grave shortcomings were noticed:-
(i)Sec.328 IPC: - It was alleged that Hansraj the e-
erickshaw puller was given some toxic/sedative by accused persons in order to took away his e-rickshaw and MLC also shows that he was admitted with unknown poison. The discloser statements of both the accused persons were silent about the type of substance given to Hansraj in order to make him immobilize. You failed to bring on records the source and moved on application to doctor in causality, seeking therein sample of lavage and blood of victim. Doctor advised on very same application ti1at samples would be preserved and provided by the doctor of ward where patient had already 6 OA No. 698/2019 Item No. 63 (C-2) been shifted. But you did not move further and kept the application with you. Thus, you failed to investigate as to what substance, was given to victim.
(ii) Section 411 IPC:-The case property i.e. e-rickshaw was not registered with Directorate of Transport Authority. You failed to bring any evidence that could prove that e-rickshaw recovered from accused Kanahaiya belonged to victim Hansraj.The seizure memo of aforesaid e-rickshaw, was prepared in a very careless manner. There was no mention of color of e.rickshaw, battery or any other distinguishable identity mark. The victim also failed to produced any documentary evidence that could prove the ownership or possession of e-rickshaw.
You have not done any investigation in the said case and you kept sitting on case file for full 60 days. Accused AKANSHA Kanhaiya has been languishing in jail for full 60 days but AKANSHA 2026.04.06 there is no evidence to prove that recovered E-Rickshaw 16:46:48 belonged to victim Hansraj. It clearly shows lackadaisical +05'30' approach towards proper investigation, which is serious lapse on the part of you.
The above act on the part of you SI Yogesh Kumar No.D-4528 (PIS No.28061470) amount to gross misconduct, negligence carelessness and dereliction in the discharge of official duties and unbecoming of a Police Officer, which renders you liable to be dealt with departmentally, under the provision of Delhi Police(Punishment & Appeal)1980."
10. It is also admitted fact that cognizance was taken by learned Trial Court on the Challan filed by the Police on the basis of investigation conducted by the respondents and the learned Trial Court has taken cognizance of that and after trial, the learned Trial Court has convicted the person accused in the said case FIR. It also remains admitted that there has been no stricture or adverse comment against the applicant by the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid trial, while taking cognizance. Rule 13 of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 reads as under:-
"Rule: 13 7 OA No. 698/2019 Item No. 63 (C-2) (1) In cases in which strictures are made on the conduct of a police officer by a Sessions Court or by a Metropolitan Magistrate's court but no specific recommendation is made by the court making such strictures that an enquiry should be made, the Deputy Commissioner of Police will decide whether an investigation into the matter is necessary. If he decides that investigation shall be made, the procedure for investigation shall be as laid down in Rule 16 below.
(2) When strictures on the conduct of a police officer are made by thé High Court and are communicated to the Delhi Administration, the appointing authority shall proceed to take action in accordance with the instructions of the Delhi Administration.
(3) In cases where serious charges arise from strictures made AKANSHA by criminal courts, the concerned Deputy Commissioner AKANSHA 2026.04.06 of Police shall initiate necessary disciplinary action 16:46:48 against the police officer against whom strictures have +05'30' been made. In case such proceedings are initiated against an Inspector of Police, information shall be sent to the Additional Commissioner of Police concerned."
11. The disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and the impugned orders have been passed even before the learned Trial Court has passed the order of conviction in the said case FIR. The impugned appellate order dated 04.12.2018, clearly demonstrates the charges against the applicant which have been concluded by the disciplinary authority and the Inquiry Officer has, of course, been referred to. However, it is found that none of the grounds pleaded by the applicant in his appeal have been considered and dealt with by the appellate authority in the impugned appellate order dated 04.12.2018. It is settled law that the Apex Court in Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v/s State of U.P. & Ors., reported in 1970 AIR 1302, has held that recording of reasons in support of the decision by a quasi-judicial authority is obligatory as it ensures 8 OA No. 698/2019 Item No. 63 (C-2) that the decision is reached according to law and is not a result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. The necessity to record reasons is greater if the order is subjected to judicial review or appeal. No reason has been recorded by the appellate authority while rejecting the applicant's statutory appeal.
12. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view AKANSHA that the OA deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed 2026.04.06 AKANSHA 16:46:48 +05'30' with the following orders:-
(i) The impugned orders dated 27.07.2018, 04.12.2018 and 18.05.2018 are set aside.
(ii) The applicant shall be entitled to the consequential benefits.
(iii) The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
13. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R. N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/aks/