Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Jai Prakash vs Comm. Of Police on 21 July, 2025
1
Item No. 29(C-3)
O.A. No.3765/2017
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.3765/2017
Order reserved on : 09.07.2025
Order pronounced on : 21.07.2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
HC (Exe.) Jai Prakash,
Age 53 years, Designation HC (Exe),
S/o Shri Inder Singh,
R/o H-No 210/31, Ashok Vihar,
Sonipat, Haryana.
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Saurabh Ahuja )
Versus
1. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Head Quarter,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Vigilance),
Police Head Quarters,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Jalaj Aggarwal)
2
Item No. 29(C-3)
O.A. No.3765/2017
ORDER
By Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A) :-
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of the decision of the respondents to continue to keep applicant's name in the 'Secret List'.
2. Factual matrix.
2.1 The applicant joined as Constable (Exec.) with the respondents on 21.09.1982. He was promoted to the post of Head Constable (Exe.) in the year 2007. In the year 2009, an FIR was registered against him bearing No. 06/2009 under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act along with Section 120B/342/384 of the IPC. In pursuance of the FIR, the applicant surrendered himself on 09.07.2009 and remained in judicial custody till 14.09.2009. As a consequence, in light of the provisions of Standing Order No. 265/2009 of the Delhi Police, the name of the applicant was placed under the Secret List of persons with doubtful integrity. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the applicant on the same charges on 15.12.2009, which culminated into 3 Item No. 29(C-3) O.A. No.3765/2017 imposition of penalty of Censure by an order dated 04.10.2011. The batch-mates /juniors of the applicant were extended promotion to the post of ASI (Executive) Special Grade with effect from 11.11.2016, while the name of the applicant was ignored. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred a representation on 15.12.2016 which was rejected by the respondents on 27.03.2017. He preferred another representation on 17.04.2017, which was once again rejected on 18.05.2017. The applicant preferred his third representation on 10.07.2017 to remove his name from the Secret List of persons with doubtful integrity and to extend him promotion, however, the same was neither considered nor acted upon by the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has preferred the instant O.A. seeking the following relief(s):-
"I. to quash and set aside the order dated 22.08.2016 passed by the respondents , whereby the name of the applicant has been continued in the secret list and order dated 12.11.2016 upto the extent that name of the applicant has not been recommended to the post of ASI (Exe) (Special Grade) and orders dated 27.03.2017 and 18.05.2017, whereby the representation of the applicant has been rejected and the order dated 09.08.2017, vide which his name has been continued in the secret list of doubtful integrity.
4 Item No. 29(C-3) O.A. No.3765/2017 II. Direct the respondents to
promote/designate the applicant to the post of ASI (Exe) (Special Grade) w.e.f. 11.11.2016 alongwith the juniors and to grant all consequential benefits alongwith arrears of pay with interest @ 18% from the date of entitlement till the date of payment. III. Cost of the proceedings may also be awarded to the applicant.
IV. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may also be passed favour of the applicant."
3. Notices were issued to the respondents and they have filed their counter reply to which the applicant has also filed his rejoinder.
4. Submissions by learned counsel for the applicant :
4.1 Mr. Sourabh Ahuja, learned counsel for the applicant made the following submissions in support of the applicant:-
(i) He drew attention to the order dated 04.10.2011, whereby penalty of Censure was inflicted upon the applicant. The operative portion of the order (page39) would confirm that the charges do not invite corruption or moral turpitude. The part of the charge that has been proved is confined to the role of the applicant in providing his mobile phone to one Mr. 5 Item No. 29(C-3) O.A. No.3765/2017 Afzal to speak to his wife, who was lifted allegedly by the Special Staff. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the said order is reproduced herein below:-
"Therefore, the major portion of charge is not backed by evidence of anykind against the delinquent. Where the role of delinquent comes under scanner is the fact that the mobile phone of delinquent HC was used by Afzal to speak to his wife, who was lifted allegedly by the Special Staff. Therefore, it would be necessary to Censure the conduct of delinquent HC Jai Parkash, NO. 8902/PCR to deter him in future to be careful with his personal belongings and abide by law in dealing with Crime and Criminals. Accordingly, the conduct of HC Jai Parkash, No. 8902/PCR is hereby Censured. He is re-instated from suspension with immediate effect. The suspension period of HC Jai Parkash, No. 8902/PCR from 19-3-2009 to the date of issue of this order is also decided as period spent on duty for all intents and purposes."
(ii) The Standing Order No. 265/2009, para 5, details the circumstance under which the name of the delinquents could be placed under the Secret List. As per Sub-head (ii) and (iii) thereof, since the applicant was in judicial custody under the POC Act, it could have been the reason for placing the name of the applicant in the Secret List. However, the Sub-head (vi) under the same para 5 would confirm that the names of delinquents who 6 Item No. 29(C-3) O.A. No.3765/2017 are awarded a minor penalty pursuant to major penalty proceedings for lack of integrity, moral turpitude or corruption, would be placed in the Secret List of persons with doubtful integrity. In the present facts, as explained in the impugned order, it is not a case of lack of integrity, moral turpitude or corruption which could have been a reason for inflicting punishment of Censure. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions of the Standing Order 265/ 2009 are reproduced below:-
"5 ii) Officials who are awarded a major penalty upon conclusion of departmental enquiry proceedings in one of the following cases:
a. On charges of lack of integrity
b. On charges of gross dereliction of duty
in protecting the interest of the Government, although the corrupt motive may not be capable of proof.
(iii) Officials who are arrested in a case under the P.O.C Act.
xxx xxx xxx
(vi) Officials who are awarded a minor penalty on charges involving specific charges of "lack of integrity", "moral turpitude" and "corruption" pursuant to major penalty proceedings in which the charge involving lack of integrity/moral turpitude has been proved. It is advisable and more appropriate to make a specific allegation / charge of 'lack of integrity' in the case of 'corruption'." 7 Item No. 29(C-3) O.A. No.3765/2017 iii. The applicant would fall under clause (d) of para 6 of the Standing order 265/2009 under the heading 'Exceptions', as he has been inflicted with a minor penalty. The relevant para 6(d) is reproduced below:-
"6. EXCEPTIONS:
....(d) Officers against whom disciplinary proceedings have been completed, or are in progress, in respect of administrative lapses, minor violation of conduct rules and acts of indiscipline."
iv. Drawing strength from provision (f) of the Exception para 6, he submitted that as there is no act of malafide involved, the name of the applicant could be removed from being placed in the Secret List. Sub- head (f) of Para 6 is reproduced herein below:-
"6(d). The name of police officers should not be brought on Secret List of D.I for mere violation of instructions, if there is no malafide act involved."
v. Para 8 of the Standing Order 265/2009 under the heading 'Removal of name from D.I. List & Transfer of names from Agreed List to Secret List', says that if name of the officer is entered in the Secret List for any reason, it would not be removed until a period of three years and the period of three years would be reckoned from the date of punishment in disciplinary 8 Item No. 29(C-3) O.A. No.3765/2017 proceedings or from the date of conviction in the trial. In the present facts, the disciplinary proceedings culminated in infliction of a punishment of Censure on 04.10.2011 and until 2023, the criminal court had not taken cognizance of the charge-sheet. The challan in the criminal court was filed, only in the year 2023 and the charges are yet to be framed. vi. Clause 7 of the Standing Order No. 378/2009 incorporates that in a criminal case, the date of the charge-sheet would be the relevant date which could invite intervention of the respondents to place the name of the applicant in the Secret List. Clause 7 of the SO No.378/2009 reads as under:-
" Result of officers who are under suspension or facing departmental enquiry or involved in criminal cases, shall be kept in sealed cover. A DE shall be deemed to have been initiated only when the summary of allegations has been served on the delinquent officer and, in a criminal case, from the date the charge sheet has been filed in the court."
4.2. Shri Ahuja summarised his submissions and stated that the effect of censure in cases of corruption, could be for a period of five years which ended on 04.10.2016. In the present facts, the allegation of corruption has not been a reason for 9 Item No. 29(C-3) O.A. No.3765/2017 inflicting the punishment, therefore, the effective period would only be six months. In the present facts, the crucial date is 11.11.2016 when the counter parts/juniors of the applicant were extended promotion as ASI (E) Special Grade and the disciplinary proceedings had completed way back on 04.10.2016 and the challan was not filed in the criminal case. The name of the applicant cannot be placed in the Secret List of persons with doubtful integrity for perpetuity. It has been 16 years now reckoning from 09.07.2009. During the pendency of the O.A., the applicant has already retired on 31.10.2023, on attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, the only relief that could be extended to him would be on notional basis.
4.3. Learned counsel for the applicant relies on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1145/2020 in support of his contentions.
5. Submissions by Mr. Jalaj Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondents.
5.1. Mr. Jalaj Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the O.A. He made 10 Item No. 29(C-3) O.A. No.3765/2017 the following submissions in support of his contentions :-
(i) He drew attention to the Standing Order No. 265/2009 and submitted that it is an admitted position that the applicant was in judicial custody from 09.07.2009 till 14.09.2009 that invited a reason to place his name in the Secret List.
(ii) The Standing Order was clear that till the criminal proceedings were pending, his name could not be removed from the Secret List.
(iii) In the present facts, though the challan was filed in October 2023, therefore, the criminal case is still pending. Hence, the name of the applicant could not be removed from the Secret List.
(iv) He drew strength from Sub-head (i) and (ii) of para 8 of the Standing Order No.265/2009, which reads as under:-
"REMOVAL OF NAME FROM D.I. LIST & TRANSFER OF NAMES FROM AGREED LIST TO SECRET LIST
i). Periodical review of cases of officers, whose names are brought on Agreed /Secret List of D.I. shall not mean automatic removal of their names from D.I. List.
ii) When the name of an officer has been entered in the list for good and adequate reasons, it will not be removed until a 11 Item No. 29(C-3) O.A. No.3765/2017 period of three years has elapsed. The period of three years for which the name will be counted on the list will count from the date of punishment in disciplinary proceedings or from the date of conviction in a court trial."
(v) He relied upon paragraph 11 of the counter reply to support his contentions. The same reads as under:-
"11. That in pursuance of GNCT of Delhi's order dated 7.2.2017, the name of the applicant alongwith other eligible HCs were again considered by the Departmental Screening Committee held on 11.10.2017. The Screening Committee adopted the same criteria as was adopted earlier while recommending the names of HCs (Exe.) for grant of designation of ASI (Spl.Rank). The name of the applicant was not recommended by the Departmental Screening Committee due to the following reasons which are as follow:-
1. Name existing on the 'Secret List' of persons having doubtful integrity w.e.f. 9.7.2009.
2. Criminal case pending vide FIR No. 06/2009 u/s 7/13 POC Act and u/s 120-
B/342/384 IPC PS AC Branch (pending investigation).
3. He was also awarded punishment of 'Censure' vide order dated 4.10.2011 (after initiation of department enquiry).
6. Analysis.
6.1. Head the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12 Item No. 29(C-3) O.A. No.3765/2017 6.2. The precise issue in this OA is that the name of the applicant was placed in the Secret List of persons with doubtful integrity in the year 2009 pursuant to an FIR No. 06/2009 dated 19.03.2009 u/s 7/13 POC Act and 342/384/120-B IPC and has continued to be in the Secret List till date. The departmental proceedings were initiated on the same charges by order dated 04.10.2011.
6.3. There are two Standing Orders which would be relevant and necessary to decide this OA. Both these Standing Orders No.265/2009 and 378/2009 have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per para 5 of the Standing Order No.265/2009 i.e. 'Secret List of doubtful integrity', the names of the officers are placed in the list of doubtful integrity category for one or the more of the reasons cited in the Standing Order under para 5, reproduced hereinabove. In the present facts, the applicant may not have been arrested, but remained in the judicial custody between 09.07.2009 and 14.09.2009, however, placing of his name in the Secret List was well within the provisions of the Standing Order No.265/2009.
13Item No. 29(C-3) O.A. No.3765/2017 6.4. The provision 8 (ii) of the Standing Order No.265/2009 details the circumstances whereunder the name of the officers could be removed from the Secret List of doubtful integrity, which reads as under:-
"8(ii) When the name of an officer has been entered in the list for good and adequate reasons, it will not be removed until a period of three years has elapsed. The period of three years for which the name will be counted on the list will count from the date of punishment in disciplinary proceedings or from the date of conviction in a court trial."
6.5. It would be worthwhile to mention that subsequently a Standing Order No.04/2021 has been issued. Para 8(ii) of the same is reproduced herein below:-
"8(ii) When the name of an officer has been entered in the List for good and adequate reasons, it will not be removed until the prescribed period of the list has elapsed, or there is any change in the status of the case. The period of three years for which the name will be counted on the list, will be from the date of punishment in disciplinary proceedings or from the date of conviction in a court trial."
6.6. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid Standing Orders i.e. Standing Order No.265/2009 and revised Standing Order No.04/2021, would make it clear that 14 Item No. 29(C-3) O.A. No.3765/2017 the name of the delinquent would not be removed from the Secret List unless "there is any change in the status of the case". In the present facts, name of the applicant was placed in the Secret List in pursuance of the FIR No.06/2009, which is still pending. The FIR is under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. The charge sheet may have been filed in October, 2023, the applicant did not avail his remedies with respect to the delayed filing of the charge sheet and, therefore, he cannot take the benefit of not availing his remedies. 6.7. In addition, Clause 5(vi) of the Standing Order No.265/2009 states that officials who are awarded minor penalty on charges of corruption or, 'lack of integrity' and moral turpitude pursuant to major penalty proceedings, in which charge involving lack of integrity/moral turpitude has been proved shall be kept in Secret List. The fact is that a major penalty chargesheet containing the charges of 'corruption' was issued against the applicant. The disciplinary proceedings resulted in minor penalty of 'Censure'. Hence, keeping him in the Secret List due to pendency of FIR in corruption case and continuing him in the 15 Item No. 29(C-3) O.A. No.3765/2017 Secret List due to pendency of the FIR as well as subsequent awarding of minor penalty in pursuance to disciplinary enquiry proceedings in a major penalty case involving corruption are legitimate actions. This Tribunal does not find any cogent reason to judicially interfere in the action taken by the administrative authorities in keeping the name of the applicant in the Secret List' after the expiry of previous currency periods.
7. Conclusion 7.1. In view of the above, it is clear that there is no change in the circumstances with respect to the status of the criminal case, so the action of the respondents in not removing the name of the applicant is well within the provisions of the Standing Orders detailed hereinabove.
7.2 Accordingly, the OA being devoid of merits is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
( Dr. Chhabilendra Roul ) (Pratima K. Gupta)
Member (A) Member (J)
'rk'