Tribunal Can't Direct Reinstatement Without Considering Pending Criminal Matters: Delhi High Court

Background Facts

The respondent was a Constable in the Delhi Police. Three FIRs were registered against him. The first for causing the death of a colleague by accidental firing of his service weapon. The second for house trespass and simple hurt and the third for cheating and forgery in connection with gold biscuits. The police department dismissed him from service in September 1996.

The constable challenged his dismissal before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the dismissal and permitted the department to initiate fresh departmental proceedings. Accordingly, an inquiry was initiated in 2004. Meanwhile, the constable had been acquitted in the criminal case concerning the second FIR in 2000. In 2005, the Tribunal directed that departmental proceedings could not continue on the second charge.

The inquiry proceeded on the first and third charges. The Inquiry Officer held the charges proven. The Disciplinary Authority dismissed the constable from service in June 2005. Further this decision was upheld by the Appellate Authority in November 2006. The constable was later acquitted in the cheating case (third charge) in February 2006 by the Criminal Court.

Then, the constable approached the Tribunal again in 2007. The Tribunal allowed his application in 2008, quashing the dismissal and directing his reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Aggrieved by this direction, the Deputy Commissioner of Police filed the writ petition before the Delhi High Court.

It was argued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police that at the time of the Tribunal's decision in 2008, the criminal trial concerning the fatal shooting incident was still pending. The Tribunal should have awaited its final outcome before passing any order. The Police Department highlighted that subsequently the Supreme Court convicted the constable in that case.

Regarding the cheating charge, the petitioner argued that the constable was acquitted in the criminal case because the witnesses turned hostile. The acquittal was not on the merits of the case. They submitted that such an acquittal fell under an exception to Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. Therefore, it did not bar departmental punishment based on the findings in inquiry.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondent-constable that in the fatal shooting incident, the departmental inquiry revealed that the event was an accident during duty without any intent or gross negligence amounting to misconduct. Further, the testimony of a senior officer confirmed that the deceased constable had snatched the weapon during a scuffle and its discharge was accidental.

With respect to the cheating charge, the constable contended that he was fully acquitted by the Criminal Court when the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and witnesses could not identify him. Therefore, his acquittal created a legal bar under Rule 12 of the Delhi Police Rules against continuing departmental proceedings on the same matter.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that while the Tribunal's role in re-appreciating evidence from departmental proceedings is limited, it can intervene where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or violate principles of natural justice.

On the fatal shooting charge, it was noted by the Court that the departmental record, including the statements of the other witnesses in the departmental proceedings indicated the incident was an accident of service during a scuffle. There was no finding of misconduct or even negligence in the charge-sheet. It was held that in absence of any allegation of misconduct or negligence in the happening of the incident, the respondent could not have been given any punishment. Hence, the findings of the Tribunal on first charge were upheld by the Division Bench.

Regarding the cheating charge, it was found by the Division Bench that in the departmental proceedings, none of the witnesses identified the respondent. Therefore, the finding of guilt was unsustainable. Further, the Bench declined to delve into the controversy under Rule 12 of the Delhi Police Rules as the charge was based on no evidence.

It was held that the Constable's subsequent conviction must be considered by the competent authority. Consequently, the Tribunal's direction for immediate reinstatement with full back benefits was set aside by the Division Bench. The Police Department was directed to take an informed decision on the Constable's reinstatement taking his subsequent conviction into account.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police was disposed of by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Deputy Commissioner of Police v. Ex. Const. Arvind Kumar

Case No. : W.P.(C) 263/2009

Counsel for the Petitioner : Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC

Counsel for the Respondents : Sachin Chauhan and Abhimanyu Baliyan, Advs