In a recent judgment passed by the Division bench of the (CAT) emphasized that a judicial verdict, such as a clean acquittal in a criminal trial, takes precedence over a departmental decision. It is stated that if the verdict in the criminal trial is awaited, it may take years, causing demoralization and uncertainty for the accused.
Brief Facts:
The case involves Harish Chhikara, a constable in the Delhi Police, who challenged his dismissal from service over allegations of impersonation and multiple applications for a specific position. The case centers on the interpretation of Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, and the permissibility of simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings.
Contentions by the Applicant:
The applicant challenged the order of punishment, arguing that the departmental proceedings and dismissal were unjust. He claimed that the provisions of Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, applied to his case. He argued that his acquittal in the criminal case should have resulted in a reevaluation of the departmental proceedings and a potential reinstatement. The applicant referred to the Full Bench judgment of the Administrative Tribunal in Sukh Dev Singh & Anr., which supported his contention that acquittal in a criminal case should have precedence over the departmental proceedings. He maintained that his case involved a "clean acquittal" due to a lack of evidence and that the departmental proceedings were based on the same evidence presented in the criminal trial.
Observation by the Tribunal:
The Tribunal noted that the applicant, Harish Chhikara, had challenged his dismissal from service, which was based on allegations of impersonation and multiple applications for a specific position in the Delhi Police. The Tribunal pointed out that the case revolved around the interpretation of Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, and specifically Rule 12(e), which deals with "additional evidence for departmental proceedings." The Tribunal considered the applicant's argument that his acquittal in the criminal case should take precedence over the departmental proceedings, citing the Full Bench judgment in Sukh Dev Singh & Anr. as a supporting precedent.
The Tribunal also referred to a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in George N.S. as further reinforcement of the position that an acquittal due to a lack of evidence or a failure to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt should not be treated as an acquittal on technical grounds. The Tribunal emphasized the need to consider the impact of simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings on individuals facing allegations, especially when the nature of the charges is serious, such as those involving corruption, dacoity, or other heinous offenses.
Decision of the Tribunal:
The Tribunal allowed the applicant's case. The impugned orders dated 21.12.2011, 25.09.2014, and 06.04.2023, which led to the dismissal of Harish Chhikara from service, were quashed and set aside. The respondents (Delhi Police) were directed to reinstate the applicant, Harish Chhikara, in service. The applicant was entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject. The respondents were instructed to comply with these directions within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the tribunal's order.
Case Title: Harish Chhikara v. Delhi Police through Commissioner of Police & Others.
Case Number: OA No. 1223 of 2023
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J), Hon’ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
For the Applicant: Advocate Shri Anil Singhal
For the Respondents: Advocate Mr. Amit Yadav
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Delhi_Police_Officers.JPG
