Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Kuldeep Singh vs Union Of India on 3 February, 2025
1
Item No. 13/C-2
OA 4446/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No. 4446/2024
This the 3rd day of February, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Shri B. Anand, Member (A)
HC (Driver) Kuldeep Singh
(Belt No. 1822/OND, PIS No. 28000379)
S/o Late Sh. Ishwar Singh
R/o VPO : Jhoarot, District: Sonepat, Haryana
Group 'C' Aged - 56 years
Present place of posting:-
P.S. Bawana, Delhi
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Sourabh Ahuja)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs
North Block, New Delhi
2. Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police
Police Headquarters
Jai Singh Road, Near Gurudwara Bangla Sahib,
New Delhi.
3. Joint Commissioner of Police
Northern Range
Through Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters
Jai Singh Road, Near Gurudwara Bangla Sahib,
New Delhi
4. Deputy Commissioner of Police
Outer North District
Delhi Police
2
Item No. 13/C-2
OA 4446/2024
Through Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters
Jai Singh Road, Near Gurudwara Bangla Sahib,
New Delhi
5. Deputy Commissioner of Police
Vigilance
Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters
Jai Singh Road, Near Gurudwara Bangla Sahib,
New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Rajeev Kumar)
3
Item No. 13/C-2
OA 4446/2024
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J):
In the present OA, filed u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):-
"(a) Quash & set aside the impugned order dated 30.09.2024, Penalty order dated 12.07.2021, Order dated 25.02.2022, Order dated 24.02.2022, Findings dated 04.06.2021 and Charge dated 27.05.2021 referred to in Para-1 of OA. And
(b) Direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant (on his acquittal on merits in criminal case) in terms of Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 and in terms of Full Bench Judgement of this Hon'ble Tribunal in Sukhdev Singh's case. And
(c) Restore the forfeited service of the applicant and accord him all the consequential benefits viz. Restoration of his pay, promotion/seniority, fixation of pay, difference in pay, financial upgradation under MACP/ACP Scheme along with interest @ GPF rates etc. And
(d) Award cost in favour of the applicant and against the respondents. And/or
(e) Pass any further order, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. In response to notice and in opposition to the claim of the applicant, the respondents have filed counter reply wherein they have prayed for dismissal of the OA.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance, we have perused the pleadings available on record.
4Item No. 13/C-2 OA 4446/2024
4. It is an admitted case that while the applicant was working as Head Constable (Driver) under the respondents, he was involved in the case FIR No. 327 of 2015 dated 25.07.2015 registered with PS Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, Haryana under Section 27/54/59 Arms Act read with Section 302/306 IPC. For the same set of allegations, as contained against him in the said FIR, the departmental proceedings were also initiated by the respondents and on conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority had awarded punishment vide Order dated 12.07.2021 (Annxure A/2). The Appellate Authority has confirmed the punishment by rejecting the statutory appeal preferred by the applicant vide Order dated 25.02.2022 (Annexure A/3). Subsequent thereto, the learned trial court acquitted the applicant in the aforesaid case FIR vide order/judgement dated 08.09.2022 (Annexure A/12). In view of his such acquittal, the applicant preferred a representation before the respondents in the light of the provisions of Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter, referred to as the Rules). However, the said representation has been rejected by the 5 Item No. 13/C-2 OA 4446/2024 respondents vide the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure A/1).
5. Mr. Sourabh Ahuja, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant has been acquitted by the learned trial court in the aforesaid case FIR and the acquittal does not fall under any of the exceptions, as provided in Rule 12 of the Rules. The respondents were required to revisit the order of penalty at their own and the applicant was not to suffer any penalty for the same set of allegations. Therefore, the respondents should have passed an order in this regard. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on order/judgement dated 18.02.2011 passed by the Full Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 2816/2008 titled Sukhdev Singh & Anr. Vs. GNCTD & Ors. (Annexure A/14), which has become final. The second limb of argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 is not a reasoned and speaking order. The respondents, while passing such order, have not dealt with any of the grounds taken by the applicant in his appeal/representation and thus, the same is passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice. 6 Item No. 13/C-2 OA 4446/2024
6. On the other hand, Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, by referring to assertions made in counter reply of the respondents, has argued that during departmental inquiry proceedings, the deposition of PW-2 in the case of FIR No. 327/2015 confirmed the recovery of suicide note from the possession of the deceased and the name of the applicant was mentioned in the said suicide note. Further, PW-3, before the learned trial court in said case FIR who was also the first IO of the case, confirmed the recovery of suicide note from the possession of the deceased and the name of the present applicant was mentioned in the said suicide note. In a similar manner, the various other Prosecution Witnesses' statement in the said criminal case has been referred to by learned counsel for the respondents, as contended in para 4.3 and 4.4 of the counter reply. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel has further invited our attention to the contention made in para 4.15 of the counter reply, wherein it is asserted by the respondents that there is no provision to revisit the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Moreover, there is only one provision of appeal against the original order of punishment, i.e., under the 7 Item No. 13/C-2 OA 4446/2024 provisions of Rule-23(2) of the Rules. He submits that accordingly, there is no legality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 warranting interference therein by the Tribunal. He has added that principles of natural justice have been fully complied with by the respondents inasmuch as the departmental inquiry has been concluded and taken to its logical conclusion, after giving adequate opportunity of defence to the applicant and involvement of the applicant was proved in the departmental proceedings. The impugned order of penalty has been passed by the Competent Authority, keeping in view the provisions of the relevant rules. In this background, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that interference by the Tribunal, while exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review, is not warranted and the OA deserves to be dismissed with cost against him.
7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
8. The provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules have been considered by the Full Bench of this Tribunal in Sukhdev 8 Item No. 13/C-2 OA 4446/2024 Singh (supra). We may reproduce para nos. 6 to 9 of the said judgement hereunder:-
"6. From the discussion as made above, we are of the view that there is no difficulty if the employer may proceed only criminally against an employee. In that case, departmental proceedings may be held or not, the field is absolutely covered under rules 11 and 12 of the Rules of 1980. The difficulty will arise only in case, the order of punishment in departmental proceedings is earlier to the order passed by the criminal court, and that too when the verdict of the criminal court is that of acquittal and the circumstances are such as envisaged in rule 12 that no departmental enquiry can be held. In such a situation, as mentioned above, we are of the view that since a judicial order takes precedence over an order passed in departmental proceedings, it is the judicial verdict which has to be given effect, and, therefore, in that situation the order passed in departmental proceedings shall have to be re-visited and changed, modified or set at naught, as per the judicial verdict. This is the only way that appears to us to reconcile the situation which may arise only in the circumstances as mentioned above. This course to be adopted otherwise also appears to be one which will advance the cause of justice. It may be recalled that as per provisions contained in rule 11 of the Rules of 1980, a subordinate rank on his conviction can be dismissed or removed from service. Of course, as mentioned above, the result of the appeal that he may have filed shall have to be awaited. Once, he is acquitted in a second appeal or revision filed by him, he has to be reinstated, meaning thereby, if the order of his dismissal or removal from service has already been passed, the same has to be set at naught. Once, an order of dismissal or removal passed on conviction of the subordinate rank has to be reviewed on his acquittal later in point of time, we find no reason as to why the same procedure cannot be adopted in a case where the subordinate rank may have been held guilty of the charges framed against him, but later acquitted by the criminal court. We are conscious that as regards the first situation as mentioned above, the rules take care of it, whereas, for the situation in hand, the rules are silent, but since the settled law on the issue is that, rule or no rule, if on clean acquittal the order of punishment passed in departmental proceedings has to be re-visited or set at naught, why this provision cannot be read into the rules.9
Item No. 13/C-2 OA 4446/2024
7. The Delhi Police, after judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), issued Standing Order No.125/2008. Para 10 thereof specifically deals with parallel departmental proceedings when court cases are pending. After quoting from the judgment aforesaid and while taking into consideration another judgment of the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & others v T. Srinivas [AIR 2004 SC 4127], it has been ordered that in all cases where police officers may be facing criminal proceedings, especially under Prevention of Corruption Act or where moral turpitude is involved, departmental proceedings can also be initiated simultaneously and the same should not be kept/held in abeyance due to pendency of such criminal proceedings, even if evidence in both the proceedings may be the same. The said Standing Order has been passed in consonance with the settled law on the situation. However, as mentioned above, when a subordinate rank may earn a clean acquittal in criminal proceedings, the order, if has already been passed in departmental proceedings inflicting the subordinate with a penalty, shall have to be re-visited.
8. We may mention, before we may part with this order, that an ideal situation would be where the allegations against the subordinate rank are such which may constitute a cognizable offence, he should be criminally tried and the departmental proceedings should await the judicial verdict, but it is well neigh impossible to achieve this ideal situation, in view of the prevailing circumstances in the country. Experience shows that it takes years and years before a criminal trial may culminate into an order of conviction and sentence or acquittal. Cases are not lacking where subordinate ranks in police are facing serious criminal charges, like bribery, dacoity, rape and even murder. When heinous offences may be committed by those who may be in police and can be well said to be organized criminals, even though a few of them, it is always desirable if their delinquency is proved, that they should be shown the exit door as early as possible. Their continuance in police force will demoralize the entire rank and file in the police organization and would also shatter the morale and confidence of public at large. If the verdict in the criminal trial is to be awaited, which, as mentioned above, in a given case, may take even a decade or two, it will totally demoralize the public at large. Further, in our view, if the subordinate rank may be innocent, it is better for him as well that he steers clear of the charges framed against him in the departmental proceedings, and the earlier it is done, the better it will be for him, as otherwise, he would be looked down upon not only by the society, 10 Item No. 13/C-2 OA 4446/2024 but, in a given case, even by his own family. It may be in an absolutely small percentage of cases where the subordinate rank may be held guilty in departmental proceedings, and yet are honourably acquitted by the criminal court. Such persons can well be taken care of by reinstating them in service by setting at naught the orders passed in departmental proceedings by reinstating them and giving them all that may be due under rules. Corruption is eating into the very vitals of the society. We need not refer to judicial precedents where this aspect has been emphasized, as that would unnecessarily burden the judgment. Such persons who may be a burden to the nation cannot be allowed to continue in service and that too such service as police. There are adequate remedies available for them, in cases, however, they are honourably acquitted, by restoring them their status by reinstating them and giving them all consequential benefits.
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."
9. The learned trial court, while acquitting the applicant in the aforesaid case FIR vide order/judgement dated 08.09.2022 (Annexure A/12), has ruled in para 27 as under:-
"27. As a result of aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused Kala @ Sunil, Manjeet and Sanjay for having committed an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal code, however, it has miserably failed to prove its case against the other remaining accused and accordingly the accused Kala @ Sunil, Manjeet and Sanjay are convicted whereas other remaining accused namely Jai Bhagwan, Naveet @ Chhota, Jitender @ Tinu, Karambir @ Bablu, Kuldeep @ 11 Item No. 13/C-2 OA 4446/2024 Kallu and Rajiv @ Raju facing trial are acquitted of the charge framed against them by giving benefit of doubt. Bail bonds and surety bonds of accused Jai Bhagwan, Naveet @ Chhota, Jitender @ Tinu, Karambir @ Bablu, Kuldeep @ Kallu and Rajiv @ Raju stands discharged. However, accused Jai Bhagwan, Naveet @ Chhota, Jitender @ Tinu, Karambir @ Bablu, Kuldeep @ Kallu and Rajiv @ Raju are directed to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each under Section 437A Cr.P.C. Surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 437A Cr.P.C. undertaking therein to appear before the Hon'ble High Court as and when the notice is issued by the Hon'ble High Court in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgement of this Court have been furnished by the accused, which have been accepted and attested. The bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months. Let the accused Manjeet, Sanjay, Sunil @ Kala be heard on the quantum of sentence on 13.09.2022."
10. On careful consideration of the provisions of the Rule 12 and the judgements in the case of Sukhdev Singh (supra), it is evident that the provision of Rule 12 of the Rules is distinct and separate from the provisions of Rule 23(2) of the Rules. Thus, it is perverse on facts as well as on law at the end of the respondents to contend that after the appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules, there is no provision for the employee of the respondents to approach them for revisiting the order of penalty passed in the departmental inquiry, if at all, the concerned employee has been acquitted by the learned trial court in the relevant case FIR for the same and similar allegations.
12Item No. 13/C-2 OA 4446/2024
11. In the case of Sukhdev Singh (supra), it is also categorically ruled that unless, the case of the delinquent/ accused falls under any of the exceptions, as provided under Rule 12, such employee is not required to suffer any penalty. Admittedly, after his acquittal, the applicant, in support of his claim, as made in the present OA, has pleaded various grounds. However, none of them has been considered by the respondents while passing the impugned order dated 30.09.2024, which reads as under:-
"Please reference No. 684/MT Sec./OND, dated 19.10.2022, on the subject cited above.
In this regard, it is intimate that your representation for re-visiting the Punishment order passed in the departmental enquiry vide order No. 4556-77/HAP/OND, dated 12.07.2021 has been considered by DCP/OND, Delhi, but the same could not be acceded to."
12. The importance of passing a self-contained, speaking and reasoned order and to issue under the signature of the prescribed Disciplinary/Appellate/Reviewing Authority has been emphasized by the Government of India in its instructions dated 13.07.1981 in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar vs. State of UP & Ors. reported in 1970 AIR 1302. The Hon'ble Apex Court in this case, observed that recording of reasons in support of a decision 13 Item No. 13/C-2 OA 4446/2024 by a quasi-judicial authority is obligatory as it ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the 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 subject to appeal. On bare perusal of the impugned order dated 30.09.2024, it is apparent that the same has been passed in utter violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahabir Prasad (supra).
13. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the OA is allowed with the following directions:-
(i) The impugned order dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure A/1) is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The respondents are directed to consider the applicant's representation dated 19.10.2022 afresh in the light of the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules, read with the judgement of this Tribunal in the case of Sukhdev Singh (supra) as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahabir Prasad (supra).
(iii) On such consideration, if the case of the applicant is found to be not falling under any of exceptions in Rule 12 14 Item No. 13/C-2 OA 4446/2024 of the Rules, the applicant shall be entitled for all the consequential benefits.
(iv) The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
(v) However, in the facts and circumstances, cost is made easy.
(B. Anand) (R.N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /akshaya/