The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), New Delhi, quashed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) and directed the Joint Commissioner of Police to counsel the concerned DCP to take a fresh look into the matter of reinstatement of the constable, considering the acquittal order passed by the High Court.
While remanding the matter for consideration afresh, the Tribunal lamented the DCP for his refusal to decide the representation of the applicant (constable dismissed from service), by passing an absolutely non-speaking and cryptic order, in a very cavalier manner, referring to the representation as not maintainable.
The Division Bench comprising Harvinder Kaur Oberoi (Judicial Member) and Dr Sumeet Jerath (Accountant Member) observed that the respondents’ police department ought to have considered the representation of the applicant by carefully going through the judgment of the High Court, which had absolved the applicant from the criminal charges.
Finding that the concerned officer has failed in his duty to consider the representation and, for some reason, decided to reject the same as being non-maintainable, the Bench also directed the respondents to take necessary steps in terms of Rule 11(2) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, which was not done primarily.
Briefly, the applicant, who was serving as a Constable, was accused in an FIR under Section 302 IPC. Pursuant to his conviction, the applicant was dismissed from service with immediate effect under Rule 11(1) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. Later, the High Court had acquitted him of the criminal proceedings, for the failure of the prosecution to prove the commission of murder, and set aside the conviction while directing his release.
Since the order passed by the High Court has attained finality and was not challenged by the State, the applicant sought reinstatement in terms of Rule 11(2) of the Delhi Police Rules, 1980, which was rejected by a cryptic order.
Appearances:
Advocate Ujwal Ghai, for the Applicant
Advocates Sangeeta Rani and Manvir Singh, for the Respondents
