Facts
The applicant, an ASI (Driver) in the Delhi Police, was subjected to departmental proceedings for allegedly extorting ₹7,000 from a citizen while in uniform
Source reference: p. 3-4On 27.02.2015, the disciplinary authority imposed a major punishment of forfeiture of five years of approved service permanently, entailing a proportionate reduction in pay
Source reference: p. 2This order was upheld by the appellate authority on 17.09.2015
Source reference: p. 2Simultaneously, a criminal case (FIR No. 42/13, u/s 384 IPC) was filed on the same charges, resulting in the applicant’s acquittal by the Trial Court on 04.08.2015
Source reference: p. 2The applicant challenged the punishment, contending that the respondents failed to revisit the departmental penalty in light of his criminal acquittal
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the respondents were duty-bound to revisit the order of punishment under Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, following the applicant’s acquittal by the Trial Court
Source reference: p. 2, para 22. Whether the allegations in the disciplinary inquiry and the criminal trial were sufficiently similar to necessitate a review of the punishment
Source reference: p. 3, para 5Law Applied
The court primarily applied Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, which dictates the procedure for departmental action when an officer is acquitted in a criminal trial on the same charges
Source reference: p. 2It relied on the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal in Sukhdev Singh and Anr. v. GNCTD and Ors. (O.A. No. 2816/2008), which established that authorities must re-examine departmental punishments post-acquittal
Source reference: p. 2, 5The Tribunal further applied the principles discussed in Dilbag Singh v. GNCTD and Ors. (O.A. No. 3873/2018) regarding the restoration of service benefits following judicial exoneration
Source reference: p. 3, 5Reasoning
The applicant argued that since the DE and FIR were based on identical facts, Rule 12 mandated a review of his punishment
Source reference: p. 2The respondents countered that there were material differences between the allegations in the DE and the FIR
Source reference: p. 3However, the Tribunal observed that the appellate authority had already treated the cases as similar, noting that the primary witness in the DE was the same individual who lodged the FIR
Source reference: p. 4The Tribunal found that the respondents had ignored the Trial Court's acquittal order and failed to fulfill their statutory obligation to "re-look" at the punishment as per the Sukhdev Singh precedent
Source reference: p. 5It held that because both proceedings emanated from the same incident, the department could not maintain the punishment without first considering the implications of the judicial acquittal under Rule 12
Source reference: p. 5Holding
The Tribunal allowed the O.A. and set aside the punishment order dated 27.02.2015 and the appellate order dated 17.09.2015
The Tribunal directed Respondent No. 2 to re-evaluate the case in strict accordance with Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980
Source reference: p. 5It ordered that if the review is favorable to the applicant, all consequential benefits must be restored
Source reference: p. 5The department was granted liberty to revisit the punishment, while the applicant’s grounds for challenge remain open
Source reference: p. 5-6Original Court PDF
Hawa Singh RathivsComm. Of Police
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in