Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vijender Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 22 April, 2026
1
Item No. 32/ C-II O.A. No. 1250/2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 1250/2015
This the 22nd day of April, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
ASI Vijender Singh,
57 years, S/o Late Sh. Babu Singh,
R/o-28, Type_II,
Police Station, Jagat Puri,
Delhi
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCTD, Through the Commissioner of Police, PHQ,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
2. The Special Commissioner of Police, Armed Police through the
Commissioner of Police, PHQ, I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
3. The Addl. Commissioner of Police, Armed Police,
Delhi through the Commissioner of Police, PHQ, I.P. Estate, New
Delhi.
4. The Dy. Commissioner of Police, 1st Bn. DAP through
the Commissioner of Police, PHQ, I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
5. The Dy. Commissioner of Police, East District through the
Commissioner of Police, PHQ, I.P. Estate, New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Jalaj Agarwal)
KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA
2026.05.05
SAXENA 12:28:46+05'30'
2
Item No. 32/ C-II O.A. No. 1250/2015
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) In the present OA, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals' Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):
"8.1 To quash and setaside the order dated 09.04.2010 whereby a Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the applicant alongwith other co-delinquent.
8.2 To quash and setaside the order dated 25.04.11.
8.3 To quash and setaside the order dated 21.11.2011 whereby the joint department enquiry initiated vide an order dated 09.04.2010 against the applicant and co-delinquent ground. is being withdrawn on administrative 8.4 To quash and setaside the order dated 03.03.2012 whereby the Department Enquiry was initiated only in respect of applicant.
8.5 To quash and setaside the order dated 09.07.2013 whereby the major punishment i.e. forfeiture of five (05) years approved service permanently is imposed upon the applicant with immediate effect entailing proportionate reduction in his pay and order dated 01.09.2014 whereby the appeal of the applicant is rejected by the Appellate Authority and to further direct the respondent that forfeited years of service be restored as was never forfeited with all consequential benefits including seniority & promotion and pay & allowances.
8.6 To quash and setaside the finding of the Enquiry Officer.
8.7 To quash and setaside the Order dated 25.10.2013 whereby the name of applicant has been kept in Secret List of doubtful integrity from the date of punishment and to further direct the respondent that the name of the applicant be removed from the list of Secret List from the date of its inception.
Or/and Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant."
KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA 2026.05.05 SAXENA 12:28:46+05'30' 3 Item No. 32/ C-II O.A. No. 1250/2015
2. The claim of the applicant has been contested by the respondents by filling counter reply. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating his claim and the grounds in support thereof. Subsequently, with the permission of the Court, the learned counsels for the parties have also filed written synopsis. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance, we have perused the pleadings on record.
3. Undisputed facts are that a Show Cause Notice dated 22.03.2006 (Annexure A-16) was issued to the applicant while he was working as an ASI and posted with P.S. Mandawali as to why his conduct, referred to in the said Show Cause Notice, should not be censured. The applicant was accorded 15 days' time to submit his reply/explanation. Thereafter, the applicant submitted his response and the respondents passed an order dated 30.09.2006 (Annexure A-17) and the proposed penalty of censure was inflicted upon the applicant vide such order. For the incident referred to in the Show Cause notice dated 22.03.2006, FIR No. 856/2002 under Sections 364A/306/201/34 was registered with Police Station Shakarpur and the learned Court, vide order/judgment dated 20.12.2008 (Annexure A-18), adversely commented upon the conduct of KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA 2026.05.05 SAXENA 12:28:46+05'30' 4 Item No. 32/ C-II O.A. No. 1250/2015 the applicant and the concerned SHO/Inspector of the applicant at the relevant time.
4. Pursuant to the order/judgment dated 20.12.2008 of the learned Trial Court, FIR No. 27 dated 19.01.2009 under Section 201/218/34 of the IPC was registered with Police Station Mandawali against the applicant. The said FIR is stated to be pending before the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the latest instructions received by him a closure report was filed in the said case. However, Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that he is having no specific knowledge about this fact.
5. Pursuant to the observations of the learned Trial Court in its order dated 20.12.2008, the respondents issued an order dated 07.01.2010, contemplating disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and the said inspector Mangal Chand Meena. Both the applicant and the said inspector were dealt vide order dated 09.04.2010 for the lapses referred to in the Show Cause Notice and for which the learned Trial Court has also observed adversely against the applicant and the said inspector in its order/judgment dated 20.12.2008 and the respondents issued an KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA 2026.05.05 SAXENA 12:28:46+05'30' 5 Item No. 32/ C-II O.A. No. 1250/2015 order dated 03.03.2012. To such order, the concerned Inquiry Officer framed the charges against the applicant, however, no charges were framed against the co-delinquent, the said inspector Mr. Meena, after considering the statement of all the prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, the respondents vide their order dated 25.04.2011 ordered for supplementary inquiry against the applicant and the co-delinquent, Mr. Meena. Ultimately, vide order dated 22.11.2011, order dated 09.04.2010 was withdrawn on administrative grounds without prejudice to the departmental action to be taken against them.
6. The respondents finally issued an order dated 03.03.2012 initiating a fresh departmental enquiry against the applicant, admittedly for the same lapses for which the Show Cause Notice dated 22.03.2006 was issued to the applicant and pursuant to which a penalty of censure was inflicted upon him vide order dated 30.09.2006, of course keeping in view the adverse findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in its order/judgment dated 20.09.2008. Pursuant to the impugned order dated 03.03.2012, the Inquiry Officer has submitted the impugned report leading to the impugned order(s) of penalty. Thus, the present OA.
KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA
2026.05.05
SAXENA 12:28:46+05'30'
6
Item No. 32/ C-II O.A. No. 1250/2015
7. The applicant in the OA has pleaded various grounds in support of his claim. However, Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, has restricted his arguments only to the following effect, with a prayer that the other grounds may be left open:
i. Once for the same incidents and alleged lapses, the respondents after conducting an inquiry, pursuant to issuing a Show Cause Notice to the applicant, have inflicted one of the penalties i.e. censure, they are precluded from initiating any fresh inquiry for the same incidents and lapses;
ii. In support of his such arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the order/judgment dated 15.03.2002 of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the matter of Ram Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
reported in 2002 (3) AWC 2078 and also an order/judgment dated 07.08.1997 of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Ahmedabad in the matter of N.U. Agani Vs. Union of India & Ors. in OA No. 106/96 KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA 2026.05.05 SAXENA 12:28:46+05'30' 7 Item No. 32/ C-II O.A. No. 1250/2015
8. On the other hand, Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondents, has referred to the assertions made in para 5.3 of the counter reply and submits that under Rule 16 (X) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 (herein after referred to as the 'Rules'), the Disciplinary Authority is empowered to return back the enquiry to any officer to bring the facts at home as well as in the interest of justice and it cannot be called as denovo inquiry proceedings. He submits that the adverse findings/observations of the learned Trial Court was not available with the respondents while the respondents had initially issued the Show Cause Notice dated 22.03.2006 proposing to inflict the penalty of Censure upon the applicant and after considering all material facts they have inflicted such penalty upon the applicant vide order dated 30.09.2006. However, Mr. Aggarwal, has fairly submitted that the incidents and allegations referred to in the Show Cause Notice dated 22.03.2006, the order dated 30.09.2006 inflicting penalty of Censure and the allegations referred to in the impugned Memorandum dated 03.03.2012, are same.
9. In rejoinder, Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 03.03.2012, initiating KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA 2026.05.05 SAXENA 12:28:46+05'30' 8 Item No. 32/ C-II O.A. No. 1250/2015 disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, is not for any other alleged lapses/misconduct of the applicant other than what has been alleged against the applicant in the Show Cause Notice dated 22.03.2006 and in the order of penalty dated 30.09.2006. He submits even under Rule 13 of the Rules which deals with action required in view of strictures of Court also does not provide that a fresh inquiry will be permissible against the delinquent against whom for the same set of allegations, he has been departmentally dealt with and punished.
10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. We have also considered the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and particularly noted herein above, leaving the other grounds open.
11. It is undisputed that for the incidents and allegations as leveled against the applicant for initiation of disciplinary enquiry vide impugned order dated 03.03.2012, the respondents had proceeded against the applicant vide Show Cause Notice dated 22.07.2006 and after considering his reply and other material facts on record, have passed the order dated 30.09.2026 inflicting penalty of 'Censure'. In this view of the KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA 2026.05.05 SAXENA 12:28:46+05'30' 9 Item No. 32/ C-II O.A. No. 1250/2015 matter, the issue arises as to whether for the same incidents and allegations, a fresh inquiry is permissible in law. We are of the considered view that in view of what has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Ram Nath Singh (Supra), such issue is no more res integra, particularly keeping in view paras 20 to 23 thereof such judgment which read as under:
"20. Where the charged employee is exonerated after an Inquiry duly held, a second inquiry on the same facts is legally not permissible as held in Dwarkachand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1958 Raj 38:
"If we were to hold that a second departmental enquiry could be held after the previous one has resulted in the exoneration of a public servant, the danger of harassment to the public servant would, in our opinion, be immense. If it were possible to ignore the result of an earlier departmental enquiry, then there will be nothing to prevent a superior officer, if he were so minded, to order a or a third or a fourth or even a fifth in the exoneration of a public servant."
21. Rule of double jeopardy does not bar but absence of power under a rule inhibits a second inquiry as held in State of Assam v. J. N. Boy Biswas, AIR 1975 SC 2277: 1976 (2) SCR 128:
"No rule of double jeopardy bars but absence of power under a rule inhibits a second inquiry by the disciplinary authority after the delinquent had once been absolved. The appeal must fail and is dismissed with costs.
We may however make it clear that no Government servant can urge that if for some technical or other good ground, procedural or other, the first enquiry or punishment or exoneration is found bad in law that a second enquiry cannot be launched. It can be; but once a disciplinary case has closed and the official reinstated, presumably on full exoneration, a chagrined Government cannot restart the exercise in the absence of specific power to review or revise, vested by rules in some authority. The basics of the rule of law cannot be breached without legal KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA 2026.05.05 SAXENA 12:28:46+05'30' 10 Item No. 32/ C-II O.A. No. 1250/2015 provision or other vitiating factor invalidating the earlier enquiry."
22. In the absence of a specific rule, once a disciplinary case is decided on merits, second inquiry cannot be held on the same facts as held in case of Hirdaya Narayan Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1975 Lab IC 640 Pat:
"In the case of Ajodhya Prasad Pandey v. Union of India, 1971 Pat LJR 515: (1972) Lab IC 1539, a Bench of this Court had quashed a second departmental proceeding in which a railway servant had been charge-sheeted for the second time on the same allegations of fact which formed the basis of the charge-sheet in the previous departmental proceeding and he has been exonerated of those charges. In the case of Dwarkachand u. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1958 Raj 38: a Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that once a departmental enquiry is over and a public servant has been exonerated no second departmental enquiry on the same facts can be ordered unless there is a specific provision for reviewing an order of exoneration in the Service Rules or any law. In the case of Devendra Pratap Narain Raj Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh. AIR 1962 SC 1334, the Bench decision in Dwarkachand (supra), was noticed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, but the view taken in that case was not dissented from. No decision was cited at the bar in which a contrary view has been taken. It must, therefore, be held that, in absence of a specific rule, once a departmental enquiry is over and a public servant is exonerated of the charges on merits by the appointing authority, no second departmental enquiry on the facts can be ordered."
12. We may further record that keeping in view the observations/findings of the learned Trial Court in its order dated 20.12.2008 the respondents have lodged FIR No. 27 dated 19.01.2009 and as recorded herein above in the said FIR as well the closure report is stated to have been filed.
KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA
2026.05.05
SAXENA 12:28:46+05'30'
11
Item No. 32/ C-II O.A. No. 1250/2015
13. In view of the aforesaid, the OA deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed with the following directions:
i. The impugned orders are set aside;
ii. The applicant shall be entitled for consequential benefits;
iii. The aforesaid directions shall be complied by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
14. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(B. Anand) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ks/
KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA
2026.05.05
SAXENA 12:28:46+05'30'