A convicted police officer’s dismissal cannot stand without an identified statutory basis.

The applicant, a Delhi Police ASI (Steno), was convicted by the trial court on 12 July 2002 in a criminal case arising from his wife’s death; his appeal was pending before the Delhi High Court, which had suspended his sentence.

The respondents initiated departmental proceedings in 2012 and dismissed him on 6 January 2014. His departmental appeal was rejected on 26 December 2014.

He challenged the proceedings and orders, arguing, among other things, that the respondents had failed to identify a lawful basis for initiating the inquiry and imposing the penalty under the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980.

1. Whether the respondents could initiate departmental proceedings and dismiss the applicant without identifying the applicable authority or procedure under the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, particularly in light of Rule 11.

2. Whether the delay in initiating proceedings and the respondents’ treatment of the applicant’s case were grounds to set aside the disciplinary and appellate orders.

Rule 11 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 governs action following a police officer’s criminal conviction. Under Rule 11(1), dismissal or removal on conviction is subject to the rule’s requirements, including the proviso concerning the outcome of the first appeal; Rule 11(3) permits departmental action where dismissal or removal on conviction is not considered necessary.

Rules 5 and 6 set out penalties and the authorities competent to impose them, but the Tribunal considered that the respondents had not shown how those provisions supplied the legal basis for initiating the inquiry in this case.

The Tribunal also referred to the Delhi High Court’s decision in Commissioner of Police Headquarters ITO, New Delhi v. Brij Pal Singh, W.P.(C) No. 1044/2008, 4 December 2008, which recognised that departmental action may be initiated under Rule 11(3) while the first appeal is pending.

The Tribunal found that the respondents knew of the applicant’s conviction in 2002 but did not initiate departmental proceedings until 2012, and offered no explanation for that delay or for failing to act after the 2011 amendment to Rule 11.

Although the respondents denied proceeding under Rule 11 and relied on Rules 5 and 6, they did not identify any provision authorising the inquiry and penalty in the circumstances, nor did they claim to have acted under Article 311 of the Constitution or an analogous provision.

The Tribunal therefore found the proceedings and resulting orders unsustainable; it did not determine the merits of the pending criminal appeal.

It directed that the applicant receive consequential benefits under the applicable rules and instructions, with compliance preferably within six weeks, and left the respondents at liberty to take action or pass an order depending on the outcome of the criminal appeal.

No order as to costs was made.