Removal for a Section 304A conviction was disproportionate absent proper consideration of the offence’s negligence-based nature.

Anil Kumar, a Delhi Police constable, was prosecuted after a truck driver died from a gunshot fired from Kumar’s service rifle.

Although initially charged under Section 302 IPC, he was convicted under Section 304A IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for one year, three months and three days, with a fine.

His appeal was dismissed as withdrawn after he had served the sentence.

The disciplinary authority removed him from service under Rule 11(1) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, and treated his suspension period as not spent on duty; the appellate authority upheld the removal.

Kumar’s legal heirs pursued the OA after his death during its pendency.

They challenged the removal and appellate orders, as well as Rule 11(1); the challenge to the Rule was not pressed.

Whether the disciplinary authority’s decision to remove Kumar under Rule 11(1), following his conviction under Section 304A IPC, was legally sustainable in light of the nature and gravity of the offence

Whether the appellate authority properly considered Kumar’s grounds of appeal, including the conviction under Section 304A IPC, alleged inconsistent treatment of other officers, and the proportionality of the penalty

Whether the applicants were entitled to consequential relief following the setting aside of the impugned orders

Rule 11(1) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, as amended, permits the disciplinary authority, after receiving a report of a police officer’s conviction, to consider the offence’s nature and gravity and remove or dismiss the officer without a further show-cause notice if it forms the opinion that continued retention is prima facie undesirable.

The Tribunal relied on the requirement that an appellate authority consider and address the material grounds raised on appeal, citing Mahavir Prasad v. State of U.P., AIR 1970 SC 1302, and A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150.

It also considered proportionality and non-arbitrariness in reviewing the penalty.

The Tribunal referred to Delhi Police Standing Order No. HRD/12/2022, whose list of serious or heinous offences did not include Section 304A IPC.

The Tribunal found that the conviction was under Section 304A IPC, not Section 302 IPC, and that the trial court had imposed a sentence corresponding to the period Kumar had already spent in custody.

It considered the death to have resulted from negligence, without an ulterior motive or mens rea, and noted that Section 304A IPC was absent from the cited Standing Order’s list of serious or heinous offences.

The disciplinary order, in the Tribunal’s view, did not adequately assess the distinction between the charged offence and the offence of conviction.

The appellate authority recorded Kumar’s grounds but did not meaningfully address them and referred to the conviction under Section 302 IPC, leading the Tribunal to find non-application of mind.

In light of these deficiencies and the nature of the offence, the Tribunal held the removal arbitrary and the penalty disproportionate.

The applicants were granted consequential benefits, including notional continuity of service, but no arrears of pay.

The respondents were left at liberty to impose a penalty other than removal or dismissal and were directed to comply preferably within six weeks of receiving the order.

The challenge to Rule 11(1) was dismissed as not pressed, and there was no order as to costs.