Departmental punishment must be revisited and set aside upon judicial acquittal involving the same charges and witnesses.

The applicant, a Constable in the Delhi Police, was subjected to a Disciplinary Inquiry vide order dated 04.08.2014 following his involvement in FIR No. 39/2014 under Sections 323, 452, 307, 506, 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

On 28.10.2015, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a major penalty of forfeiture of two years’ approved service permanently.

The applicant was later acquitted of all criminal charges by the Trial Court on 16.08.2016 because material witnesses turned hostile and gave him a "clean chit".

Despite this, the Appellate Authority only modified (reduced) the penalty on 28.06.2017 rather than setting it aside.

The applicant challenged the penalty, the inquiry report, his inclusion in the "doubtful integrity" list, and the treatment of his suspension period as "not spent on duty".

1. Whether a departmental penalty can be sustained when a police officer is acquitted in a criminal trial based on the same facts and the acquittal does not fall under the exceptions of Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980?

2. Whether the respondents were bound to revisit and set aside the disciplinary penalty in light of the final judicial verdict as recorded in their own previous orders?

Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, which mandates that a police officer acquitted by a criminal court shall not be punished departmentally on the same charge unless specific exceptions (e.g., technical acquittal, witnesses won over, or additional evidence) apply.

Full Bench judgment of the Tribunal in Sukhdev Singh & Anr. v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. (OA No. 2816/2008), which established that a judicial verdict takes precedence over departmental proceedings, and if an acquittal occurs, the departmental punishment must be "re-visited" and the subordinate rank restored to their status with consequential benefits.

The Tribunal reasoned that the allegations in the departmental inquiry and the criminal trial were identical, arising from the same incident and supported by common witnesses.

Upon perusal of the Trial Court judgment dated 16.08.2016, the Tribunal found that the applicant was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove its case, as material witnesses (PW-2 to PW-5) categorically stated the accused were not the perpetrators.

The Tribunal determined that this acquittal was on merits and did not fall under any of the restrictive exceptions listed in Rule 12(a) to (e).

The Disciplinary Authority had explicitly stated in its original order that the applicant’s case and suspension period would be "examined... on receipt of final verdict" of the criminal case.

Since the law gives precedence to judicial verdicts in such overlapping matters, the Tribunal found the respondents' failure to fully exonerate the applicant and restore his benefits to be a violation of statutory rules and established legal principles.

The applicant is entitled to all consequential benefits.

The respondents were directed to comply with these orders within six weeks of receiving a certified copy.