Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Hawa Singh Rathi vs Comm. Of Police on 16 March, 2026
1
Item No. 36 (C-3)
O.A. No. 4018/2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 4018/2015
This the 16th day of March, 2026
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Shri B. Anand, Member (A)
ASI (Dvr.) Hawa Singh Rathee, Age-57 years,
S/o Sh. Lakhmi Chand,
R/o B-40/105, Pitam Pura, Delhi
... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCTD through
the Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCTD,
A-Wing, 5th Floor, Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi-110113
2. The Joint Commissioner of Police(Security),
Delhi Police,
Security Headquarter,
Vinay Marg, New Delhi.
3. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Security, Security Headquarter,
Vinay Marg, New Delhi
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Sinha)
DEEKSHA
DHINGRA
DEEKSHA
2026.03.20
DHINGRA
14:39:38+
05'30'
2
Item No. 36 (C-3)
O.A. No. 4018/2015
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
1. The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant challenging the order of punishment dated 27.02.2015 and the order of the appellate authority dated 17.09.2015 whereby the order of punishment of forfeiture of five years approved service permanently with entailing proportionate reduction in his pay has been imposed.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the same charges as in the disciplinary proceedings an FIR No. 42/13 at P.S. Model Town, Delhi under Section 384 IPC dated 12.02.2013 has been filed. He submits that the applicant has been acquitted by the Learned Trial Court on 04.08.2015. Learned counsel for the applicant draws our attention to Rule 12 of the Delhi Police Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1980, and submits that post the acquittal of the applicant, the respondents were duty-bound in terms of Rule 12 of the Rules to re-look/re-visit the order of punishment in terms of the law laid down by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2816/2008 titled Sukhdev Singh and Anr. Vs. GNCTD and Ors. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the applicant has filed the present O.A. seeking the following relief(s):-
"(i) To quash and set aside the order dated 27.02.2015 whereby the major punishment of 5 (five) years of approved service has been forfeited permanently entailing proportionate reduction in pay is being imposed upon the applicant and order dated 17.09.2015 whereby the appeal of the applicant has been rejected and to further direct the respondents DEEKSHA DHINGRA DEEKSHA 2026.03.20 DHINGRA 14:39:38+ 05'30' 3 Item No. 36 (C-3) O.A. No. 4018/2015 that forfeited year of service be restored as it was never forfeited with all consequential benefits.
(ii) To - quash and set-aside the order dated
05.04.2013 of initiation of D.E.
(iii) To quash and set-aside the finding of Enquiry Officer.
OR/ANY Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant."
3. Learned counsel for the applicant relies on the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 3873/2018 titled Dilbag Singh Versus GNCTD and Ors. dated 23.09.2022 to support claim of the applicant.
4. After issuance of notice, the respondents have filed counter reply. However, the reply is silent on the question of Rule 12.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that there is material difference in the allegation in the disciplinary inquiry and that in the criminal FIR. Drawing attention to the summary of allegations (quoted below), he submitted that the allegations in the FIR are not the same and therefore, there is not a case to be treated under Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980.
"Summary of Allegations It is alleged against ASI (driver) Hawa Singh No. 2831/D PIS No. 28810449 that during the month of August 2012 while he was posted in Security Unit he visited at the house of one Amit S/o Sh. Vishamber R/o -A-1/13, Gujranwala town part-1, Delhi and extorted Rs. 7,000/- from him for unauthorized DEEKSHA DHINGRA DEEKSHA 2026.03.20 DHINGRA 14:39:38+ 05'30' 4 Item No. 36 (C-3) O.A. No. 4018/2015 construction on the pretext that he was posted as Division Officer in PS Model Town. On 12.02.2013 ASI (driver) Hawa Singh was apprehended by the public in the area of PS Model Town while he was trying to extort money, on his scooter no. DL. 6S F 008 and was in Delhi Police Uniform. Then complainant Amit Vij identified him and reported the matter to Police. Accordingly case FIR No. 42/13 dt. 13.02.2013 u/s 384/IPC PS Model Town was registered and he was arrested in the case. During the investigation it was found that ASI Hawa Singh was posted in Security Unit and was wearing Police Uniform for purpose from those persons, who were of extortion constructing/renovating their houses. He could not prove any genuine ground for wearing uniform and his presence in Police Station Model area. Police uniform is not weared in Security Unit. The above act on the part of AS! amount to gross misconduct, negligent, carelessness and unbecoming of a Police Officer. Therefore he is liable to be dealt with departmental action under the provision of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) rule 1980. The delinquent ASI did not admit the allegations and preferred to face the D.E. proceedings."
6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also gone through the pleadings available on record.
7. We note that not only the disciplinary authority but also the appellate authority had treated the case of the applicant similar to the allegations made in the FIR. In fact, the appellate authority had rejected the defense of the applicant for the reason that the main witness in the disciplinary authority who did not depose against the applicant was the person who had lodged the FIR, therefore, it cannot be stated that the allegations were different.
DEEKSHA DHINGRA DEEKSHA 2026.03.20 DHINGRA 14:39:38+ 05'30' 5 Item No. 36 (C-3) O.A. No. 4018/2015
8. Furthermore, the applicant in the O.A. has raised a specific ground in para 5.1-5.3 which have not been replied to in the counter reply.
9. At this stage, since the competent authority amongst the respondents has failed to go through the order of the Learned Trial Court, it may not be appropriate for us to comment on the similarity or differences between the disciplinary inquiry or the criminal trial since both of them emanate from the same incident.
10. In view of the above and following the law laid down by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2816/2008 in the case titled Sukhdev Singh and Anr. Vs. GNCTD and Ors. and the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 3873/2018 titled Dilbag Singh Versus GNCTD and Ors. dated 23.09.2022, the O.A. deserves to be allowed.
11. We have no hesitation in applying the ratio of the OA No. 1012/2020. We hereby direct respondent no. 2 to take call on the facts of the case of acquittal by the learned Criminal Court precisely in terms of Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. In case, it is found favourable to the applicant, he may be given all benefits and the applicant is given liberty to take his legal step in accordance with law.
12.With this observation, the O.A. stands allowed. The order of punishment is hereby set aside and department is given liberty to revisit the punishment in terms of Rule 12 of Delhi DEEKSHA DHINGRA DEEKSHA 2026.03.20 DHINGRA 14:39:38+ 05'30' 6 Item No. 36 (C-3) O.A. No. 4018/2015 Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. However, the grounds taken by the applicant in the O.A. shall remain open. No costs.
(B. Anand) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/dd /
DEEKSHA
DHINGRA
DEEKSHA
2026.03.20
DHINGRA
14:39:38+
05'30'