Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Hc Ramachandran Pillai vs Commissioner Of Police on 19 March, 2025
1
Item No. 21 O.A. NO. 3393/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 3393/2024
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. R N Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
HC Ramachandran Pillai,
S/o Sh. Vasudevan Pillai,
R/o Qtr. No. 81, Type-II, Police Colony
Delhi Cantt., New Delhi 110010
Aged about 58 years HC (Exe.)
Belt No. 5544/DAP G.D.Branch,
7th BN, DAP (PIS No. 28862624)
.....Applicant
(Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand)
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North
Block, New Delhi-110001
2. Commissioner of Police, Delhi, Police Headquarters, Jai Singh
Road, New Delhi 110001
3. Joint Commissioner of Police Armed Police, Police Headquarters,
Jai Singh Road, New Delhi 110001
4. Deputy Commissioner of Police III BN, DAP, Vikas Puri Police
Complex New Delhi-110058
5. Deputy Commissioner of Police, 7th BN, DAP, Malviya Nagar,
Police Complex New Delhi 110017
...Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. Archit Vasudeva)
2
Item No. 21 O.A. NO. 3393/2024
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J) By way of the present O.A., the applicant has challenged an order dated 19.07.2024, vide which request of the applicant made to the respondents for revisiting the order of penalty dated 12.09.2016 has been rejected. He has also challenged the appellate order dated 19.04.2024.
2. In the present O.A. the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(i) To quash & Set aside the Impugned Orders dated 19.04.2024 & 19.07.2024 (Annexure- A/1 (colly) passed by the respondents.
(ii) To quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated No.10394-
10422/HAP(P-II/3rd Bn., DAP dated 12.09.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, III BN, DAP, Delhi (Annexure-A/2) and Impugned Order No. 809- 12/P.Sec/Jt.CP/AP dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Police, Armed Police Delhi (Annexure-A/3).
(iii) Direct the respondents to remove the name of the applicant from the secret list with effect from the date of imputation into the said list.
(iv) To direct the respondents to pay consequential benefits in pursuance of prayer (i).
(v) To direct the respondents to pay the consequential benefits of promotion in pursuance of prayer (iii).
(vi) To direct the respondents to consider the applicant for promotion to the post of Sub- Inspector from the date on which his juniors have been promoted;
(vii) Award the costs in favour of the applicant. 3 Item No. 21 O.A. NO. 3393/2024
(viii) May also pass any further order(s), direction(s) as be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice:"
3. The claim of the applicant has been contested by the respondents by filing a counter reply.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance, we have also perused the pleadings available on record.
5. It is admitted case that a departmental inquiry was initiated against the applicant vide order dated 29.09.2015 under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), on the allegation that while he was posted in Narela Traffic Circle, he took illegal gratification from the complainant and an inquiry into the complaint was conducted by the vigilance Branch and further on the basis of an interim report a case FIR No. 17/14 under Setions 7/13 (1) (d) Prevention of Corruption Act, has also been registered.
4Item No. 21 O.A. NO. 3393/2024
6. Pursuant to the said departmental inquiry, disciplinary authority vide impugned order dated 12.09.2016 inflicted the punishment of forfeiture of 5 years of approved service permanently upon the applicant entailing proportionate reduction in his pay with immediate effect subject to final outcome of the Criminal case registered against him vide FIR No. 17/14 u/s 7/13 (1) (d) POC Act at PS Vigilance.
7. Aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the applicant preferred a statutory appeal and the appellate authority has rejected the appeal vide the impugned order dated 28.04.2017. The Learned Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB -02) Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi accepted the closure report filed by the state in the said case FIR vide order/judgment dated 22.03.2024 (Annexure A/6). Applicant, in the light of what has been provided in the impugned disciplinary order, that the penalty imposed upon him is subject to final outcome of the criminal case and also in the light of the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules preferred a representation dated 31.07.2024 5 Item No. 21 O.A. NO. 3393/2024 (Annexure A/7), requesting the respondents to revisit the penalty imposed in the departmental proceedings.
8. However, such request of the applicant has been rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 19.04.2024 and 19.07.2024.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the action of the respondents is contrary to what has been provided in the impugned disciplinary order itself, in as much as , admittedly, the penalty was imposed by the disciplinary authority, subject to final outcome of the said case FIR. He has further argued that otherwise also, once the applicant was departmentally proceeded for the same allegations as in the relevant case FIR, when the applicant has not only been acquitted rather the closure report filed by the prosecution in the said case FIR has been accepted by the learned Trial Court , the penalty imposed upon the applicant can't 6 Item No. 21 O.A. NO. 3393/2024 sustain. Learned counsel further argues that otherwise also, vide impugned order dated 19.04.2024, the respondents have themselves ordered for removal of the name of the applicant from the list of police personnel involved in criminal cases and in the said order the respondents have also stated 'it has been decided that no further departmental action is warranted in the matter'.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the claim of the applicant is squarely covered by order/judgment of a larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sukhdev Singh and Anr. Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. in O.A. No. 2816/2008 also, wherein it has been held that the judicial verdict would have precedence over the departmental proceedings and the subordinate rank would be restored to his status with all consequential reliefs once acquitted in the relevant case FIR. The judgment in the case of Sukhdev Singh (Supra) has been relied upon by the Tribunal in number of cases including while passing order/judgment dated 20.01.2023 in O.A. No. 7 Item No. 21 O.A. NO. 3393/2024 4112/2017 titled Harish Chhikara Vs. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi and Ors. (Annexure A/8), order/judgment dated 23.03.2023 titled Suman Pal and Anr. Vs. Delhi Police & Anr. in O.A. No. 3823/2018.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the claim of the applicant. He submits that the competent authority has passed the orders keeping in view the relevant rules and instructions on the subject. He argues that once the said case FIR was closed, the respondents have rightly removed his name from the list of the officers involved in the criminal case. He adds that Rule 25 (a) and 25
(b) are not in existence in the aforesaid rules. He further argues that the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority both have carefully examined the Disciplinary Enquiry File and all relevant documents in the matter and only thereafter, they have passed the impugned orders. In this view of the matter, no judicial interference is warranted, learned counsel argues. 8 Item No. 21 O.A. NO. 3393/2024
12. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. Undisputedly, the disciplinary authority has expressively provided in the impugned disciplinary order that the penalty is subject to final outcome of the aforesaid case FIR. Moreover, the respondents have themselves removed the name of the applicant from the list of police personnel involved in the criminal case and have decided that no further departmental action is required in the matter vide their order dated 19.04.2024, after the closure report filed in the said case FIR was accepted by the learned Trial Court.
13. This Tribunal in the case of Sukhdev Singh (Supra) has extensively considered the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules and after considering the said judgment of the Tribunal, an order was passed by the Tribunal in the case of Laxmi Narain Meena Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and when the judgment of the Tribunal in Laxmi Narain Meena (Supra) was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the Hon'ble High Court did not find any ground to interfere. The judgment 9 Item No. 21 O.A. NO. 3393/2024 of the Tribunal in Laxmi Narain Meena (Supra) was subsequently considered by this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Suman Pal (Supra).
14. The Tribunal held in paras 6 to 9 in the case of Suman Pal (supra) as under:-
"6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and also gone through the judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Laxmi Narain (supra). In the said case, under challenged was the order dated 11.08.2010 of this Tribunal in OA No.2458/2009, wherein the Tribunal has set aside the punishment order dated 07.04.1999, Appellate Order dated 22.10.1999 as well as the order dated 28.05.2001 in the Review Application. The Tribunal held that the respondent is entitled to all the consequential benefits, in accordance with law, subsequent to his acquittal under the relevant case FIR No.88/2003.
7. In the said case, pursuant to the departmental inquiry against the allegations as levelled against the applicants in the relevant case FIR, penalty was imposed upon the them. The Appellate authority has also rejected the appeal preferred by the applicants Item No.20 (C-II) and the review filed by the applicants was also rejected. However, on acquittal of the applicants in the said case FIR, the respondents, by invoking their jurisdiction under Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, have passed the orders and the Hon'ble High Court has considered the same in para 3 as under :-
"3. Pursuant to the acquittal of the respondent, since the prosecution had failed to make out the case against the respondent, by order dated 2nd September, 2008, the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Special Cell, who was the Disciplinary Authority at that time, had held that no further departmental action is required to be taken against the respondent. The order dated 2nd September, 2008, passed under Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980 reads as under:-
"Consequent upon the judgment dated 24.4.2008 in a kalandara prepared vide DD No. 9-A dated 5.10.1997 u/s 189/500/506 (1) IPC, 60(a)/122/65/119/91/93/97 D.P. Act P.S. Chandni Chowk, Delhi passed by the Learned Court of Shri Jagdish Kumar, M.M., Delhi, the case of SI (Exe.) Laxmi Narain No. D/3214 (PIS No. 10 Item No. 21 O.A. NO. 3393/2024 28770579) has been carefully considered and examined under rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 in the overall facts and circumstances of the case and it has been decided that no further departmental action is warranted against him."
8. After detailed consideration of the relevant rules, the Hon'ble High Court did not find any ground to Item No.20 (C-II) interfere with the order dated 11.08.2010 of the Tribunal in the said OA No.2458/2009.
9. Ordinarily, we would have remanded the matter to the respondents to re- visit the penalty imposed upon the applicants by keeping in view the provisions of Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. However, we find that identical issue has already been adjudicated upon by this Tribunal in OA No. 2458/2009 and the order therein has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 29.08.2011 in the WP(C) No.2458/2011 (supra). We are of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter. We find that the claim of the applicants is squarely covered by the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court in Laxmi Narain Meena (supra)"
15. In the present case, the applicant is found to be at a better footing than the case where an employee accused in the case FIR has been acquitted in view of the fact that the learned Trial Court has not only accepted the closure report filed by the State, in the said case FIR, but also while accepting the closure report, the learned Court of the Special Judge has ruled in para 7 of the order/judgment dated 22.03.2024 as under:-
"7. Before parting with this order, it is expressly clarified that the acceptance of this closure report, will not preclude the State (a) from elaborately investigating the alleged attempt of extortion of Rs. 3,00,000/- from HC Ramachandran Pillai, made by Sh. Ramesh Kumar, through an associate, Sh. Rohit, under the FIR of this case or through a separate FIR and (b) from filing a charge-sheet under Section 384/511 of IPC, 1860 11 Item No. 21 O.A. NO. 3393/2024 against Sh. Ramesh Kumar and his associate, Sh. Rohit, if adequate evidence is found."
16. In the light of the aforesaid, the O.A. is disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) Orders dated 19.04.2024, 19.07.2024 and 12.09.2016 are set aside.
(ii) Order dated 19.04.2024 is set aside to the extent that while passing the order for removal of the name of the applicant from the list of police personnel involved in criminal case and taking the decision of no further departmental action required against the applicant, the respondents have not revisited the order of penalty and withdrawn the penalty imposed upon him.
(iii) The applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits i.e., restoration of his seniority, fixation of pay, arrears of pay, etc.
(iv) The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 6 weeks of receipt of a copy of this order.
17. No order as to cost.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
kk/