Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vijay Anand vs Comm. Of Police on 21 August, 2023
1
Item No. 32- (C-II)
O.A. No.4628/2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 4628/2015
This the 21st Day of August, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Vijay Anand
Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police
PIS No.28000108
Aged about 41 Years
S/o Sh. Umed Singh
R/o F-7/502,Sultan Puri, New Delhi.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. Joint C.P. (Central Range)
PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi
3. Addl. DCP (Central Distt.)
Dariya Ganj, Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. B.N. P. Pathak)
2
Item No. 32- (C-II)
O.A. No.4628/2015
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J) By way of the present OA, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer (IO),vide his report dated 06.06.2015 (Annexure A-1), order dated 01.08.2015 passed by the disciplinary authority, inflicting penalty of forfeiture of three years of approved service and also the order dated 11.12.2015 (Annexure A-3) passed by the appellate authority, confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while working as Constable (Driver), the applicant was implicated in a case FIR No. 149/2012 registered with PS Sultanpuri, Delhi for alleged various offences. Simultaneously for the similar set of allegations, departmental proceeding was also initiated against the applicant and pursuant to such inquiry, the IO returned his findings vide the impugned report dated 06.06.2014; and ignoring the defence submitted by the applicant, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned disciplinary order inflicting the penalty. He further submits that ignoring the grounds urged by the applicant in his statutory appeal, the appellate authority has passed the impugned 3 Item No. 32- (C-II) O.A. No.4628/2015 order dated 11.12.2012 (Annexure A-2) vide which the penalty of the applicant has been confirmed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that during pendency of the OA, the applicant has been discharged in the aforesaid case FIR by the learned court of competent jurisdiction vide order/judgment dated 28.07.2023. He has placed on record a copy of the order/judgment dated 28.07.2023. He submits that in view of the provisions of Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, it is mandatory for the respondents to revisit the impugned orders. In support of his such contention, he has placed reliance on the order/judgment dated 18.02.2011 of Full Bench of this Tribunal in Sukhdev Singh & another Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & others (OA No.2816/2008).
4. On the other hand, Mr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, by referring to the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents, submits that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the applicant and he has been accorded adequate opportunity of defence. He submits that there is no violation of rules and/or principles of natural justice while passing the impugned orders. He argues that both the proceedings, disciplinary and the criminal, are based on different sets of evidence and, therefore, 4 Item No. 32- (C-II) O.A. No.4628/2015 merely for the reason that the applicant has been discharged from the criminal case, he is not entitled for the relief sought for in the present OA.
5. We have perused the pleadings available on record and have also considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
6. The factual matrix of the case, as precisely recorded hereinabove, is not in dispute.
7. Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 provides as under:
"12. Action following judicial acquittal. - When a police officer has been tried and acquitted by a criminal court, he shall not be punished departmentally on the same charge or on a different charge upon the evidence cited in the criminal case, whether actually led or not unless-
(a) the criminal charge has failed on technical grounds, or
(b) in the opinion of the court, or on the Deputy Commissioner of Police the prosecution witnesses have been won over; or
(c) the court has held in its judgment that an offence was actually committed and that suspicion rests upon the police officer concerned; or
(d) the evidence cited in the criminal case disclose facts unconnected with the charge before the court which justify departmental proceedings on a different charge; or
(e) additional evidence for departmental proceedings is available." 5
Item No. 32- (C-II) O.A. No.4628/2015
8. The Full Bench of this Tribunal in Sukdhdev Singh (supra) has ruled as under:-
"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. Para (I) and (J) of the order/judgment dated 20.07.2023 read as under :-
"I. Perusal of material clearly reflects that there are no specific allegations qua any of the accused persons inflicting injuries upon Ct. Sukender, ASI Jagjit and Ct. Shri Bhagwan and a simplicitor allegation that the accused persons have physically assaulted the police officials is not sufficient enough towards the grave suspicion for the presumption of offence u/s 353/332/186 IPC as not even the name of accused has been mentioned who inflicted inquiry, nor the manner/nature of injury. So far as the seizure of the case to the tune of Rs. 1.0 lakh is concerned then the prosecution has completely failed to suggest as to whether carrying of the cash amount is suggestive of the distribution of the same in the MCD elections per say. Further, as per the explanation appended to section 171E IPC which punishes the offence of bribery (171B IPC), „treating‟ means that form of bribery where the gratification consist in food, drink, entertainment or provision, however, in the present case, the said police official after reaching on the spot clearly observed that there was no supply of liquor.
J. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, the Court is of the view that the grave suspicion for the presumption of the offences u/s 186/353/332/171B/ 171E/34 IPC does not exist qua any of the accused hence, accused persons namely Sunny, Anil, Kuldeep, Rakesh, 6 Item No. 32- (C-II) O.A. No.4628/2015 Sanjay, Jitender, Deepu, Sandeep, Vijay, Vijender, Dalbir, Naresh, Kaptan, Mahesh, Anand, Kuldeep, Mohan Lal and Vikas are discharged for want of a prima facie case."
10. In view of the aforesaid facts, statutory provisions and the judgment of the Full Bench of this Tribunal in Sukhdev Singh's case (supra), we are of the considered view that the impugned orders are required to be revisited by the respondents.
11. Accordingly, the OA is partly allowed with a direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to revisit the orders impugned in the present OA, taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 and the law settled by this Tribunal in Sukhdev Singh's case (supra) by passing an appropriate order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six weeks of receipt of a copy of this order. The applicant shall also be entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with law. No costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R. N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /anjali/