Post-acquittal representation against dismissal must be considered under Rule 12 by the competent authority.

The applicant, Vinit Yadav, a Delhi Police employee, was dismissed from service by order dated 16 September 2021 under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, without holding a departmental inquiry, on account of his alleged involvement in FIR No. 454 dated 13 September 2021, registered at Police Station Dwarka, under Sections 307 IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act.

His statutory appeal dated 29 December 2025 was rejected by the Joint Commissioner of Police, Western Range, by order dated 5 May 2026.

The applicant subsequently claimed that he had been acquitted by the criminal trial court by judgment dated 15 July 2026 in S.C. No. 19/2022.

He submitted a representation dated 22 July 2026, requesting reconsideration of the penalty under Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.

As the representation remained undecided, he approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether the respondents were required to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 22 July 2026 in light of his alleged acquittal and Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.

Whether the Tribunal should directly quash the dismissal and appellate orders and grant reinstatement with consequential benefits, or instead direct the competent authority to consider the pending representation.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which enables an aggrieved government employee to challenge service-related orders before the Tribunal.

The dismissal had been made by invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, which permits dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank without a departmental inquiry where it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry.

The statutory appeal was governed by Rule 25 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.

The Tribunal also noted Rule 12 of those Rules as the relevant provision for reconsideration of the penalty in the circumstances arising after the applicant’s acquittal.

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s subsequent acquittal constituted a circumstance requiring the competent authority to revisit the penalty under the applicable service rules.

However, because the representation dated 22 July 2026 had not yet been considered, the Tribunal did not undertake a merits review of the original dismissal, the invocation of Article 311(2)(b), or the effect of the acquittal.

With the consent of the parties, it therefore adopted a limited procedural course and directed the competent authority to examine the representation and pass a speaking and reasoned order.

It disposed of the O.A. by directing the competent authority among the respondents to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 22 July 2026 by a speaking and reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within eight weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The connected M.A., if any, was also disposed of, with no order as to costs.