Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the dismissal of three Delhi Police constables following a departmental inquiry and subsequent criminal prosecution. The appellants, attached to the 9th Battalion, D.A.P., were alleged to have extorted Rs.365 from one Mohan Lal on 17.12.1985, threatening arrest and accusing him of being a smack drug addict. Criminal cases were registered under Section 395 IPC and departmental proceedings initiated under Section 21 of the Delhi Police Act. The appellants were suspended on 18.12.1985 and dismissed on 23.9.1988. Their appeals and revisions were rejected by the departmental authorities on 2.3.1989 and 21.2.1990 respectively. Meanwhile, the criminal case ended in a clean acquittal by the Sessions Court on 25.11.1989. The appellants filed O.A. No.1583/89 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, seeking reinstatement with back-wages. The Tribunal, by order dated 22.4.1994, annulled the punishment on grounds that it violated Rules 12 and 15(2) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, and was based on no evidence. However, it denied back-wages on the ground that the appellants had not amended their application to challenge the later revisional authority order dated 21.2.1990. A co-delinquent, Satya Parkash, involved in the same incident, had filed a separate O.A. No.1637/90; the Tribunal quashed his punishment by order dated 14.12.1993, and the department reinstated him with full back-wages and consequential benefits by order dated 17.1.1994. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that they were similarly situated and the denial of back-wages was discriminatory and based on a flimsy reason. The Supreme Court observed that both cases involved identical charges, clean acquittals, and findings of no evidence. The only difference was the procedural omission regarding amendment of the application, which was irrelevant because the revisional order merely affirmed the earlier orders and was passed long after the filing. The Court held that in the absence of exceptional circumstances, consequential orders must be similar for similarly situated employees, otherwise it would be arbitrary and unfair. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order to the extent it denied back-wages and directed the respondents to pass appropriate consequential orders in line with the Satya Parkash case within three months. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs. All three appellants had already been reinstated on 17.6.1994.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Departmental Inquiry and Criminal Acquittal - Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 prohibits departmental punishment after clean acquittal by criminal court on same charge - Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, Rule 12 - The Tribunal held that the Sessions Court judgment dated 25.11.1989 was a clean acquittal of the appellants, and therefore the departmental punishment violated rule 12. Held that punishment is vitiated when based on no evidence and in violation of statutory rule (Para 6). B) Service Law - Prior Approval for Departmental Inquiry - Rule 15(2) of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 requires prior permission of Additional Commissioner of Police before initiating departmental inquiry - Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, Rule 15(2) - The Tribunal found that no such prior permission was obtained in the appellants' case, rendering the inquiry and punishment invalid. Held that non-compliance with rule 15(2) vitiated the departmental proceedings (Para 6). C) Service Law - Reinstatement and Back-Wages - Parity and Non-Discrimination - Similarly situated employees must receive the same consequential relief absent exceptional circumstances - Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, Rules 12 and 15(2) - The appellants and another constable involved in the same incident were both acquitted by criminal court and their punishments quashed by the Tribunal, but the other was granted back-wages while the appellants were denied on the flimsy ground of not amending the application to challenge the revisional order. Held that the Tribunal acted arbitrarily and unreasonably; Supreme Court set aside the denial and directed parity within three months (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal acted arbitrarily and discriminatorily in denying back-wages and consequential benefits to the appellants when a similarly situated co-delinquent was granted the same after his punishment was quashed; and whether the failure to amend the application to challenge the later revisional authority's order justified denial of back-wages.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Supreme Court set aside the order of Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.1583/89 dated 22.4.1994 to the extent it denied back-wages and consequential benefits. Respondents directed to pass appropriate consequential orders in the appellants' case bearing in mind the consequential orders passed in Satya Parkash's case within three months. No order as to costs. All three appellants had been reinstated on 17.6.1994.
Law Points
- Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules
- 1980 bars departmental punishment after clean acquittal by criminal court on same charge
- Rule 15(2) of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules
- 1980 requires prior permission of Additional Commissioner of Police before initiating departmental inquiry
- punishment based on no evidence is unsustainable
- similarly situated employees must receive same consequential relief absent exceptional circumstances
- denial of back-wages on flimsy procedural ground is arbitrary and unreasonable
- clean acquittal by criminal court is a relevant consideration for reinstatement with back-wages
