Union Of India & Ors. vs Sh. Suresh Kumar Bhatia
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~90
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010399352026
+ W.P.(C) 12398/2026 & CAV 408/2026, CM APPL.
57500/2026, CM APPL. 57501/2026, CM APPL. 57502/2026
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, SPC, Ms.
Pragya Bharti, GP, Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Mr.
Somnath Bhattacharjee, Mr. Luv Kumar and
Mr. Prakarsh Giri, Advs.
versus
SH. SURESH KUMAR BHATIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik and Ms.
Prachi Sohi, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 25.08.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against judgment dated 3 March
1
2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA
2223/2025, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA.
2. The respondent, while working as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the
CPWD was indicted by the CBI in RC 34A/95. He was convicted by
1
“the Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 12398/2026 Page 1 of 12
2
the learned Special Judge CBI (PC Act ) vide judgment dated 31 July
2014 and sentenced on 5 August 2014.
3. In view of his conviction, the respondent was first issued a
show cause notice proposing a penalty of dismissal from service,
whereafter, vide order dated 17 December 2014, the respondent was
dismissed from service under Rule 19(1) of the Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965.
4. In the interregnum, the respondent challenged the order of
conviction before this Court by way of Crl. A. 1256/2014. By
judgment dated 19 August 2019, this Court set aside the conviction
and sentence of the respondent and acquitted him of the charges
against him.
5. SLP (Criminal) D 21648/2020, preferred thereagainst, was also
dismissed by the Supreme Court both on delay as well as on merits.
6. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the following paragraphs
from the judgment dated 19 August 2019 of this Court in Crl. A.
1256/2014 filed by the respondent, on the basis of which the
respondent has been acquitted:
“The submissions advanced by both the sides have been duly
considered in light of the evidence on record and decisions cited
and thereafter, this Court finds that the instant case is not a typical
trap case. In this background, the evidence of independent witness
Baldev Khera (PW-2) assumes importance. After having
scrutinized his evidence and the evidence of S.B.Sinha, Trap
Laying Officer (PW-6) and the remaining prosecution evidence, I
2
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 12398/2026 Page 2 of 12
find inherent contradictions inter se the evidence of material
witnesses. In a trap case, like the instant one, the prosecution ought
to have got the videography of the trap proceedings done, so that
the contradictions in the oral deposition of witnesses do not prove
fatal to the prosecution case. More importantly, trial court has erred
in solely relying upon the prosecution evidence and in discarding
otherwise probable defence version. Upon considering the
prosecution case as well as the defence version in its entirety, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the ingredients of the
offence alleged and recovery of bribe money (not powdered) does
not stand conclusively proved. Hence, benefit of reasonable doubt
accrues to the appellants, as they have explained their presence at
the spot by cogent evidence. It is settled legal position that mere
recovery of the bribe money by itself, is not sufficient to prove the
charge against an accused. In the absence of direct reliable
evidence regarding demand and acceptance of bribe money, the
conviction of appellants cannot be sustained.”
Consequently, the impugned judgment and order on sentence are
hereby set aside and appellants are acquitted of the charges framed
against them, while extending the benefit of doubt to them.”
7. The order passed by the Supreme Court in the SLP(Criminal) D
21648/2020 reads thus:
“There is an inordinate delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions
for which no sufficient cause has been shown by the learned
counsel for the petitioner . Even otherwise, there is no merit in the
petitions.
Therefore, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed both
on the ground of delay as also on merit.
Pending application(s), if any, shalt stand disposed of.”
(Emphasis supplied)
8. In view of the allowing of his appeal by this Court, the
respondent approached the petitioners for a recall of the decision to
dismiss him from service. A representation to that effect was made by
the respondent on 19 February 2024. As the representation was not
disposed of, the respondent moved the Tribunal by way of OA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 12398/2026 Page 3 of 12
3092/2024. By order dated 19 November 2024, the Tribunal disposed
of the OA with a direction to the petitioners to dispose of the
respondent’s representation.
9. The respondent’s representation was rejected by the petitioners
by order dated 18 March 2025. The reasoning contained in para 10 of
the said order reads thus:
“10. Now whereas this office, in compliance to Hon'ble CAT,
New Delhi order dated 19.11.2024 has examined the representation
dated. 19.2.2024 of Sh. Suresh Kumar Bhatia, Ex-JE (C) in
accordance with the relevant rules and instructions and decided
that:-
(i) as per para 4.3(v) (c) of DOPT OM dated
29.11.2022, envisage that “an acquittal on technical
grounds or where a benefit of doubt has been given to the
accused will have no effect on a penalty imposed under
CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, as while in a criminal trial the
charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, in the
departmental inquiry the standard of evidence is
preponderance of probability. There will be no effect on the
penalty of “Dismissal” imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority under Rule 19(1) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965.
(ii) as per FR 54-A 2(1) “Where the dismissal, removal
or compulsory retirement of a government servant is set
aside by the court solely on the ground of non-compliance
with the requirements of clause (1) or clause(2) of Article
311 of the Constitution, and where he is not exonerated on
merits, the Government servant shall, subject to the
provisions of sub-rule (7) of Rule 54, be paid such
amount(not being whole) of the pay and allowances to
which he would have been entitled had he not been
dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired, or suspended
prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement,
as the case may be, as the competent authority, may
determine, after giving notice to the government servant of
the quantum proposed and after considering the
representation, if any, submitted by him, in that connection
within such period (which in no case shall exceed sixty
days from the date on which the notice has been served) as
may be specified in the notice".
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 12398/2026 Page 4 of 12
Therefore, Sh. S.K.Bhatia, Ex-JE(C) is not entitled for any benefits
which he has sought vide his representation dated 19.2.2024 as he
has not been fully exonerated by the Hon'ble High Court, he has
been acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt. However, the
subsistence allowance as admissible during suspension has already
been paid to Sh. Bhatia.”
10. Aggrieved by the decision to reject his representation, the
respondent re-approached the Tribunal by way of OA 2223/2025. By
order dated 3 March 2026, the Tribunal has allowed the said OA.
11. The reasoning of the Tribunal is contained in the following
paragraphs:
“8. Admittedly, the applicant's dismissal is based on his
conviction in the above criminal case. Therefore, once the
conviction is set aside, the dismissal has to go. Moreover, in this
regard, we may draw support from the order/judgment dated
18.05.2001 of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court at Agartala Bench
in the case of Bidhan Chandra Dey versus State of Tripura and
Ors ., Civil Appeal No. 553/1996 reported in (2001) Gauhati Law
Reports 186, particularly paragraph 8 wherein the Hon'ble High
Court has ruled as under :-
8. When an employee is dismissed from service
consequent upon his conviction in a criminal case, he is
entitled to be re-instated in service on his acquittal from the
said criminal charge in criminal appeal, and the authority
has no right to deny the re-instatement. In case the
authority/department contemplates to take any further
action within the permissibility of law, it could only be done
after reinstatement, but unfortunately in the present case,
despite the authorities have been apprised of the fact of
acquittal of the petitioner supported by documentary
evidence, the authorities particularly the Commandant sat
idle nor even attended the representation filed by the
petitioner."
9. Further, our said view is also strengthened by the judgment
dated 14.07.2022 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LPA No.
174/2022 titled Jahan Singh versus Tribal Cooperative
Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd. (TRIFED)
wherein the Hon'ble High Court has ruled in paragraphs 10 to 18 as
under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 12398/2026 Page 5 of 12
“10. The undisputed facts of the case make it
very clear that the judgement of conviction was set
aside by this Court, and there is no finding arrived at
by this Court in criminal appeal that the acquittal is
a technical or honourable in nature. Even otherwise,
the relevant statutory provisions as contained under
CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, reads as under:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 14 to
rule 18-
(i) where any penalty is imposed on a
Government servant on the ground of conduct
which has led to his conviction on a criminal
charge, or
(ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied
for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is
not
reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the
manner provided in these rules, or
(iii) where the President is satisfied that in the
interest of the security of the State, it is not
expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner
provided in these rules, the disciplinary authority
may consider the circumstances of the case and
make such orders thereon as it deems fit:
Provided that the Government servant may be given
an opportunity of making representation on the
penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is
made in a case under clause(i):
Provided that the Commission shall be consulted,
where such consultation is necessary, and the
Government servant has been given an opportunity
of representing against the advice of the
Commission, within the time limit specified in
clause (b) of subrule (3) of rule 15, before any
orders are made In any case under this rule. "
11. Rule 19 of the Rules, 1965 provides for
dismissal from service without holding an inquiry,
in case a Government Servant is convicted, and
Rule 19 of the Rules, 1965 does not provide for any
distinction between a technical/ honourable, or one
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 12398/2026 Page 6 of 12
on account of benefit of doubt.
12. Rule 19(5) of the Rules, 1965 simply
mentions the word 'acquittal'. It is true that Rule
19(5) of the Rules, 1965 empowers the department
to hold a departmental enquiry despite an acquittal.
However, in the present case, the employer has
decided not to hold a departmental enquiry for
reasons best known to them, and, therefore,
reinstatement of the appellant has become
inevitable.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent/ Union
of India has vehemently placed reliance upon the
judgements delivered in Krishnakant Raghtutath
3
Bibhavnekar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ,
4
and T.N. cs. Corpn. Ltd v. K. Meerabhai .
14. The aforesaid judgements have also been
relied upon by the Learned Single Judge in the
impugned judgement.
15. The judgements relied upon by learned
Single Judge are distinguishable on facts. The
present case is not a case where the employee is
seeking employment in Government service. It is
certainly not a case where an employee has made
some incorrect statement in the police verification
form. It is certainly not a case where a person who
is seeking Government job, was subjected to trial
and was later on acquitted.
16. On the contrary, the present case pertains to
a Government servant - who while being in service,
was dismissed on account of conviction and later
sought reinstatement, on account of his acquittal.
17. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this
Court, the judgement delivered by the learned
Single Judge deserve to be set aside, and is,
accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed
to reinstate the appellant in service forthwith.
18. The respondents, after reinstating appellant
shall be free to pass appropriate orders keeping in
view the fundamental rules in respect of his claim
3
1997 (3) SCC 636
4
(2006) 2 SCC 255
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 12398/2026 Page 7 of 12
relating to wages for the period during which he
was out of service. The exercise of passing a
speaking order in respect of the claims of the
appellant, relating to back wages be concluded
within a period of three months from the date of
receiving of certified copy of this order."
10. In view of the aforesaid, the O.A. deserves to be allowed
and is accordingly, allowed with the following directions:-
i. The impugned orders dated 17.12.2014 and
18.03.2025 are quashed and set aside.
ii. The respondents shall reinstate the applicant in
service from the date of his dismissal.
iii. The respondents, after reinstating the applicant,
shall be free to pass appropriate order(s) keeping in view
the relevant rules in respect of his claim relating to the
entitlement for the wages and other benefits for the period
during which he was out of service, by passing a reasoned
and speaking order as expeditiously as possible and
preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. ”
12. The Union of India has now approached this Court by means of
the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid judgment dated 3
March 2026 of the Tribunal.
13. We have heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned SPC for the
petitioners.
14. Mr. Manish Kumar submits that, as the respondent had been
acquitted on benefit of doubt, the Tribunal erred in reinstating him in
service.
15. We have considered the submission. We are unable to agree
with Mr. Manish Kumar that the acquittal has to be treated as one of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 12398/2026 Page 8 of 12
benefit of doubt.
16. It is well settled that in examining whether the acquittal of the
office is on benefits of doubt or on merits, the court cannot be swayed
by the expression used by the Court. The Supreme Court has held in
5
Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan , that expressions such as “benefits of
doubts” and “beyond reasonable doubt” are not magic incantations
and that the Court has to examine the substance of the acquittal to
come to a conclusion as to whether it was on merits or merely by
extending the benefit of doubt.
17. In the present case, we find that this Court, while acquitting the
respondent, has specifically held that (i) there were inherent
contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, (ii) the
defence version was probable and had been wrongly rejected by the
learned Trial Court, (iii) the ingredients of the offence and recovery of
bribe money had not been conclusively proved, (iv) the respondent
had explained his presence at the spot of recovery by cogent evidence
and (v) there was no direct reliable evidence regarding demand and
acceptance of bribe money.
18. These findings, to our mind, amount to clean acquittal of the
respondent, and we cannot accept the submission that the acquittal is
merely on benefit of doubt.
19. The law with regard to continuance of an order of dismissal
from service after the officer who was dismissed has been acquitted of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 12398/2026 Page 9 of 12
the charges against him stands settled by the Supreme Court in the
6
judgments G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and Maharana Pratap
7
Singh v. State of Bihar . We may reproduce, for ready reference, the
following paragraphs from the said decisions:
G.M. Tank
“20. It is thus seen that this is a case of no evidence. There is no
iota of evidence against the appellant to hold that the appellant is
guilty of having illegally accumulated excess income by way of
gratification. The respondent failed to prove the charges levelled
against the appellant. It is not in dispute that the appellant being a
public servant used to submit his yearly property return relating to
his movable and immovable property and the appellant has also
submitted his return in the year 1975 showing his entire movable
and immovable assets. No query whatsoever was ever raised about
the movable and immovable assets of the appellant. In fact, the
respondent did not produce any evidence in support of and/or about
the alleged charges levelled against the appellant. Likewise, the
criminal proceedings were initiated against the appellant for the
alleged charges punishable under the provisions of the PC Act on
the same set of facts and evidence. It was submitted that the
departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on
identical and similar (verbatim) set of facts and evidence. The
appellant has been honourably acquitted by the competent court on
the same set of facts, evidence and witness and, therefore, the
dismissal order based on the same set of facts and evidence on the
departmental side is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.
*
8
27. In Ajit Kumar Nag v. G.M. (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd ,
this Court in para 11 held as under:
“11. As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal
court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not
preclude the Corporation from taking an action if it is
otherwise permissible. In our judgment, the law is fairly
well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar
an employer from exercising power in accordance with the
Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings,
5
(2024) 1 SCC 175
6
(2006) 5 SCC 446
7
2025 SCC OnLine SC 890
8
(2005) 7 SCC 764
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 12398/2026 Page 10 of 12
criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They
operate in different fields and have different objectives.
Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate
punishment on the offender, the purpose of enquiry
proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally
and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules.
In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the
accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers
is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of
evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental
proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to
order a conviction is different from the degree of proof
necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The
rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two
proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of
proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is
able to prove the guilt of the accused ‘beyond reasonable
doubt’, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In a
departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be
imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on
the basis of ‘preponderance of probability’. Acquittal of the
appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso
facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary
jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to
uphold the contention of the appellant that since he was
acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order
dismissing him from service deserves to be quashed and set
aside.”
Maharana Pratap Singh
“47. While an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically
entitle the accused to have an order of setting aside of his dismissal
from public service following disciplinary proceedings, it is well-
established that when the charges, evidence, witnesses, and
circumstances in both the departmental inquiry and the criminal
proceedings are identical or substantially similar, the situation
assumes a different context. In such cases, upholding the findings
in the disciplinary proceedings would be unjust, unfair, and
oppressive. This is a position settled by the decision in G. M. Tank
(supra) , since reinforced by a decision of recent origin in Ram Lal
v. State of Rajasthan .”
20. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the
Tribunal is correct in the view that it has taken, and that no cause to
interfere, within the limited scope of jurisdiction which vests in us
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 12398/2026 Page 11 of 12
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, exists.
21. We have to remind ourselves that we are not sitting in appeal
over the decision of the Tribunal but exercising certiorari jurisdiction.
22. Within the peripheries of such jurisdiction, no case for
interference is made out.
23. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine .
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
VINOD KUMAR, J.
AUGUST 25, 2026/ dsn
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 12398/2026 Page 12 of 12