Subsequent acquittal on merits mandates reconsideration of departmental penalties arising from substantially the same facts.

The applicant, a Constable in the Delhi Police, was implicated in a criminal case (FIR No. 185/2011) under Sections 376/420 IPC and simultaneously faced a Departmental Enquiry (D.E.) for allegedly contracting a second marriage without departmental permission

On 11.10.2012, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a major penalty of permanent forfeiture of six years of approved service with consequential pay reduction

The applicant's appeal was rejected on 18.11.2014

Subsequently, on 16.02.2015, the applicant was acquitted on merits in the criminal case by the Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Courts

The applicant challenged the punishment orders, arguing that the acquittal necessitated a review of the departmental penalty

1. Whether, in light of the applicant's acquittal in a criminal case involving substantially the same set of facts, the respondents were required to revisit or review the order of punishment under the statutory framework

2. Whether the departmental punishment can be sustained when a subsequent judicial verdict on the same facts results in an acquittal

The court primarily applied Rule 12 and Rule 21 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.

Rule 12 mandates that where an acquittal is recorded in a criminal case, the competent authority must examine if the departmental findings can be sustained

Rule 21 empowers the authority to review and revise orders in disciplinary proceedings based on subsequent developments

The Tribunal further relied on the Full Bench decision in Sukhdev Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (O.A. No. 2816/2008), which established that a judicial verdict has precedence over departmental proceedings and that punishment orders must be revisited if a subsequent acquittal hits the root of the matter

The Tribunal observed that the criminal case and departmental proceedings originated from substantially the same facts

It reasoned that under Rule 12 of the Delhi Police Rules, while simultaneous proceedings are permissible, an acquittal requires the department to reconsider whether the previous punishment remains valid

The Tribunal found that the respondents' refusal to review the penalty—on the grounds that the punishment preceded the acquittal—directly contradicted the Full Bench ruling in Sukhdev Singh

Since the acquittal was on merits and related to the core allegations, the statutory mandate of Rule 21 required the Disciplinary Authority to exercise its power of review to ensure the departmental outcome was consistent with the judicial verdict

The matter was remanded to the Disciplinary Authority with directions to revisit and reconsider the case in light of Rule 12 and Rule 21 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules and the Sukhdev Singh precedent. The Authority was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months, specifically examining whether the applicant’s acquittal on 16.02.2015 falls within the exceptions of Rule 12