In a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court against an order dated 19-12-2017 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (CAT), whereby an O.A. filed by the petitioner was dismissed, a Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain set aside the impugned orders and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner in service within eight weeks.
A First Information Report (FIR) was filed against the petitioner under Sections 307 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). As a result, the petitioner was suspended and later reinstated in service. Thereafter, he was convicted in the said criminal case by an order dated 16-02-2006, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Aggrieved by the conviction order, the petitioner filed an appeal.
Upon said conviction, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him under the provisions of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty, and he was visited with the punishment of forfeiture of four years of approved service permanently, entailing proportionate reduction in his pay. However, this punishment was subject to the appellate court’s decision in the appeal he filed.
In the appeal filed, the sentence of the petitioner for conviction under Section 326 of the IPC was reduced from seven years to one year, and his conviction under Section 307 was set aside. Despite this, the Disciplinary Authority, by invoking Rule 11(1) of the Delhi Police Rules, directed the removal of the petitioner from service with effect from the date of his conviction. The petitioner’s appeal against this order was also dismissed. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner filed the said O.A. before the CAT.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the O.A., the present petition was filed.
The Court stated that if the order was made subject to the outcome of the criminal appeal, it could not mean that even though the petitioner partially succeeded, the department could still enhance his punishment in the departmental proceedings and dismiss him from service. The Court perused Rule 11(1) of the Delhi Police Rules and said that, upon conviction of a police officer, it is within the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority to visit such officer with either dismissal from service or to take such departmental action as it may deem appropriate.
The Court stated that upon the petitioner’s conviction, he was visited with the penalty of permanent forfeiture of four years of approved service, along with a proportionate reduction in pay, and that, for the same conviction, the Authority could not revisit its decision. It was said that the nature and gravity of the case against the petitioner were not aggravated but diluted, and that Rule 11 does not allow reopening a case in a matter where the earlier punishment was also based on the conviction of the delinquent employee.
Thus, the Court refused to sustain CAT’s order, as well as the petitioner’s removal from service by the Disciplinary Authority, along with the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing the departmental appeal, and set them aside.
While allowing the petition, the Court directed the petitioner to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits within eight weeks.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. M. Bhardwaj, Ms. Priyanka M. Bhardwaj, Mr. Praveen Kumar Kaushik
For Respondents – Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb (CGSC), Mr. Tanveer Zaki, Mr. Amir Kha
