Delhi Police must assess Rule 12 exceptions before proceeding with a same-charge inquiry after acquittal.

The applicant, a Delhi Police Sub-Inspector, faced a departmental inquiry arising from allegations that he demanded and accepted a bribe.

He was convicted in the related criminal case in 2013, dismissed from service, and the departmental inquiry was held in abeyance.

The Delhi High Court acquitted him on appeal on 27 May 2024; the acquittal had not been challenged before the Supreme Court.

The respondents reinstated him in October 2024 but directed that the inquiry resume.

They rejected his request to drop it without determining whether his case fell within an exception under Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980.

The applicant challenged those directions and related orders.

1. Whether the respondents could resume the departmental inquiry on the same allegations after the applicant’s acquittal without first considering whether an exception under Rule 12 applied.

2. Whether the Tribunal could set aside the inquiry-related orders before the disciplinary proceedings had resulted in a final penalty.

3. Whether the matter should be remitted for reconsideration under Rule 12 or the proceedings brought to an end.

Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 requires the respondents, following an acquittal, to consider whether the case falls within one of its exceptions; the Tribunal held that, where no exception applies, the employee cannot be punished departmentally on the relevant basis.

In Sukhdev Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., O.A. No. 2816/2008 and connected matters, the Larger Bench held that simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings are not barred, but where an acquittal makes departmental punishment impermissible under Rule 12, the disciplinary decision must be revisited.

The Tribunal also relied on Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v. Satya Dev Singh, W.P. (C) No. 4433/2005, as recognising that intervention may be justified at the inquiry stage where the Rule 12 exceptions do not apply.

The departmental inquiry concerned the same allegations as the criminal prosecution, which had ended in the applicant’s acquittal.

Yet none of the impugned orders addressed whether his case fell within a Rule 12 exception, and the respondents’ stated view that the acquittal was not “honourable” did not supply that required assessment.

The Tribunal considered intervention appropriate even before a final disciplinary penalty because the inquiry was proceeding without the necessary Rule 12 consideration.

It declined to remit the matter: the applicant had already raised Rule 12 and the relevant precedent in his representation, the respondents had offered no justification based on an applicable exception, and the applicant had retired on superannuation.

It brought the proceedings to a close rather than remitting them for reconsideration and held that the applicant was entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with law.

The respondents were directed to issue necessary orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

There was no order as to costs.