Delhi High Court
Delhi Police Through Commissioner Of ... vs Pramod Kumar on 4 October, 2024
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~41& 42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 04.10.2024
+ W.P.(C) 11751/2024
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Neeraj, SPC with
Mr.Vedansh Anand, GP and
Mr.Soumyadip Chakraborty,
Adv. with ASI Sanjay Kumar
Sharma and ASI Narender Kr.,
Pairivi Officer
Mr.K.D. Sharma, SPC for Non-
Caveator
versus
SATYA VART .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Anil Singal, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 11841/2024
DELHI POLICE THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
& ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Neeraj, SPC with
Mr.Vedansh Anand, GP with
ASI Sanjay Kumar Sharma and
ASI Narender Kr., Pairivi
Officer
versus
PRAMOD KUMAR .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Anil Singal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 48858/2024 (Exemption) in W.P.(C) 11751/2024
CM APPL. 49306/2024 (Exemption) in W.P.(C) 11841/2024
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CAV 406/2024 in W.P.(C) 11751/2024
CAV 413/2024 in W.P.(C) 11841/2024
2. For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are disposed
of.
W.P.(C) 11751/2024 & CM APPL. 48857/2024
W.P.(C) 11841/2024 & CM APPL. 49305/2024
3. These petitions have been filed challenging the Orders dated
04.03.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'CAT') in OA
No.1199/2019 and OA No.1428/2019 respectively, disposing of the
said petitions with the following directions:
"5. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that
there is no distinguishing fact in the present
OA from the aforesaid OA No. 1428/2019
titled Pramod Kumar Vs. Delhi Police & Ors.
Accordingly, the present OA is also disposed
of in the same terms as OA No. 1428/2019 i.e.
with a direction to the competent authority
amongst the respondents to re-visit the
impugned punishment order dated 18.05.2017
(Annexure-A/4) and Appellate order dated
07.02.2018 (Annexure-A/5) in respect of the
present applicant by passing an appropriate
reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously
as possible and preferably within eight weeks
of the receipt of a copy of this order."
4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the petitioners that the
respondents in these petitions had, while performing their duties at the
Police Station Chitranjan Park, indulged in breach of duty for
extraneous considerations. For the same, disciplinary proceedings
were initiated against them, which resulted in the award of punishment
of their dismissal from service.
5. Aggrieved of the same, the respondents filed the above petitions
before the learned CAT.
6. Simultaneously, the criminal proceedings had also been
initiated against the respondents, which resulted in their acquittal vide
Judgment dated 18.12.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC
Act) (ACB)-02, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi. Relying
on the said acquittal, the respondents stated that in terms of Rule 12 of
the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 (in short,
'Rules'), the punishment awarded to the respondents in the
disciplinary proceedings were liable to be reconsidered by the
petitioners. The said plea found favour with the learned CAT in its
Impugned Orders. Aggrieved of the said orders, the petitioners have
challenged the same by way of the present petitions.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is settled
law that disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings can, not
only simultaneously go on, but merely because of the acquittal of the
respondents in the criminal proceedings, it cannot be said that they
cannot be proceeded against in a departmental inquiry, as the standard
of proof is different in both the proceedings.
8. While there can be no doubt about the said principle, at the
same time, in the present case, the learned CAT having taken note of
Rule 12 of the Rules and the judgments that have been passed by the
learned CAT interpreting the same, has held that an acquittal in a
criminal case needs to be considered by the disciplinary authority by
revisiting the punishment awarded to the delinquent employee.
9. Without expressing any opinion on the above, we dispose of
these petitions by clarifying that in such reconsideration, the
petitioners shall be free to keep in view all principles that are
applicable to disciplinary proceedings and the effect of an acquittal on
the same.
10. The petitions are disposed of with the above clarification. The
pending applications also stand disposed of as infructuous.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
OCTOBER 4, 2024/ns/DG
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
