Removal from service using Rule 19 CCS (CCA) Rules requires recorded reasons justifying dispensation of inquiry.

The respondent, a Mali (gardener) with the NDMC, was accused of offences under Sections 354/354A of the IPC in 2016.

He was convicted by a Metropolitan Magistrate on January 3, 2017.

Despite his sentence being suspended during the pendency of his appeal, the NDMC removed him from service on September 5, 2018, under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, without holding a disciplinary inquiry, citing "moral turpitude".

Subsequently, on March 29, 2019, the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent of all charges, citing major inconsistencies and lack of evidence in the prosecution's case.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) set aside the removal order, leading to the present writ petition by the NDMC.

1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority (DA) validly exercised its power under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules to dispense with a regular disciplinary inquiry.

2. Whether the removal from service could be sustained following the respondent's "clean acquittal" in the underlying criminal case.

The Court applied Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which allows for the imposition of penalty without inquiry following conviction, read with Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

The Court relied on Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel, establishing that dispensing with an inquiry is an exception requiring recorded reasons and cannot be done mechanically.

The Court followed Maharana Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar, G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, and Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, which hold that where departmental action is based on the same facts/evidence as a criminal proceeding, a clean acquittal makes upholding the dismissal unjust and oppressive.

The Court found that the NDMC's removal order lacked any recorded satisfaction or application of mind as to why it was "not reasonably practicable" to hold an inquiry as mandated by Art. 311(2) and Rule 19.

Regarding the acquittal, the Court observed that although the criminal court used the phrase "benefit of doubt," a holistic reading of the judgment revealed a total failure of the prosecution to produce credible evidence, amounting to a "clean acquittal".

Since the dismissal was founded solely on the criminal allegations, the acquittal removed the very basis of the penalty.

The Court emphasized that principles of natural justice are sacrosanct and the DA cannot avoid an inquiry merely because a case is weak.

The Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the CAT's judgment in its entirety, directing the NDMC to comply with the reinstatement orders, including all consequential benefits (excluding back wages) within four weeks.