Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vijender Singh Nagar S/O Khukan Singh vs Commissioner Of Police on 22 March, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.2258 of 2010 This the 22nd day of March, 2011 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE SHRI L. K. JOSHI, VICE-CHAIRMAN (A) 1. Vijender Singh Nagar S/o Khukan Singh, R/o D-8, Sector 15, Noida. 2. Yogender Singh S/o Ganga Shah, R/o C-1 A, Gali No.2, Khajuri Khas, Delhi-94. 3. Shiv Raj S/o Jagmer Singh, R/o 460 Durga Puri Extn., Shahdara, Delhi-94. Applicants ( By Shri Ajesh Luthra, Advocate ) Versus 1. Commissioner of Police, PHQ, MSO Building, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Police, IIIrd Bn/DAP, Vikas Puri Lines, Delhi. 3. Enquiry Officer, DE Cell, Police Bhawan, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. Respondents ( By Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
SI Vijender Singh Nagar, Const. Yogender Singh and Const. Shiv Raj, the applicants herein, have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking to set aside the order Annexure A-1 dated 21.6.2010 vide which departmental enquiry against them has been re-opened, which was earlier kept in abeyance. The allegations subject matter of the departmental enquiry against the applicants are that they demanded and accepted Rs.150/- from one Rajpal, driver and issued him challan for traffic violation of Rs.100/-. A source information, it is alleged, was received by Anti Corruption Branch that traffic police personnel deployed at various points in Delhi were engaged in the practice of demanding and accepting Rs.150/- for challan of Rs.100/- from drivers/owners of commercial vehicles like trucks/tempos etc., threatening them that if they failed to pay up their vehicles would be impounded. On this information, on 15.5.2002, a raiding party was formed by Inspr. O. P. Arora of Anti Corruption Branch, comprising panch witnesses and other officials of A.C. Branch. The raiding team after seeing the applicants indulging in accepting money, as mentioned above, apprehended them and the tainted money was also recovered from the possession of Const. Shiv Raj. An FIR dated 15.5.2002 u/s 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B IPC, PS AC Branch came to be registered against the applicants. It would appear that on the said allegations, the applicants were departmentally tried, but in midst of it, the same was kept in abeyance, and has now been revived vide orders dated 21.6.2010 impugned in the present OA.
2. There may be no need to refer to the facts of the case any further, as admittedly, the prosecution launched against the applicant has not been successful, inasmuch as the applicants vide the judgment dated 31.1.2011 recorded by the learned Special Judge (PC Act)-06, Tis Hazari, Delhi, have been acquitted.
3. In the context of the acquittal of the applicants, the only contention that has been raised on their behalf is that there cannot be any departmental enquiry under the provisions of rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. Rule 12, on which reliance placed so as to put an end to the departmental proceedings, reads as follows:
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 discloses 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. The contention raised by the learned counsel representing the applicants cannot be accepted in its entirety. The provisions of rule 12 would not automatically put an end to departmental proceedings. No subordinate rank of Delhi Police would be departmentally tried on acquittal by the criminal court if it is a case of clean acquittal, and the same is not on any of the grounds enumerated in clauses (a) to (e) of rule 12 reproduced above. The applicants have placed on record the judgment of the criminal court. However, it is not for us to examine in the first instance as to whether the acquittal is such where no departmental proceedings can be held. Such a decision has to be taken in the first instance by the concerned authorities. That being so, we dispose of this Original Application with a direction to the concerned authorities to go through the judgment passed by the criminal court acquitting the applicants, and if the acquittal be not on any of the grounds enumerated in clauses (a) to (e) of rule 12 of the Rules of 1980, then to proceed against them departmentally. However, if the acquittal is clean and honourable and the exceptions for putting an employee under departmental proceedings are not in existence, naturally, the applicants cannot be tried. The authorities shall take a decision in the matter and then only proceed further in the departmental enquiry, which has now been ordered to be re-opened vide the impugned order dated 21.6.2010.
4. The Original Application is disposed in the manner indicated above, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.
( L. K. Joshi ) ( V. K. Bali ) Vice-Chairman (A) Chairman /as/