The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of Rule 15(2) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 and the importance of a preliminary enquiry in disciplinary proceedings.

Siddharth Mridul, J.

1. The petitioners herein seek to challenge the judgment and order dated 04.02.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A No. 58/2001 wherein it was directed that the Respondent No.2’s forfeiture of four years of service be restored and he shall be given all consequential benefits.

2. Brief facts necessary for the instant adjudication are enunciated in the succeeding paragraphs:

3. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the Respondent No.2 on 09.09.1999 on the allegation that while posted at P.S. Subzi Mandi on 18.06.1999 he was entrusted with the investigation of case in FIR No.208/99 under Sections 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). During the course of investigation he arrested one Anil Kumar and seized vehicle bearing registration No.HR-41-7832 allegedly driven by the accused, Anil Kumar. He asked accused driver Anil Kumar to call the owner of the vehicle and also to arrange for full ‘Kharcha Pani’.

4. On 19.06.1999 Shri Sandeep Singh, owner of the vehicle, contacted the Respondent No.2 who demanded a sum of Rs.4000/- as illegal gratification for bailing out the accused driver and releasing the vehicle. When the owner of the vehicle showed his inability to pay illegal gratification, he was threatened and told that if his demand was not met, the driver and vehicle would not be released. Finding no other alternative but to pay illegal gratification, Shri Sandeep Singh paid a sum of Rs.1500/- to the Respondent

No.2 on which driver Anil Kumar was bailed out.

5. On the matter of release of the vehicle, Respondent No.2 told Shri Sandeep Singh that the same would be released as and when the remaining amount would be paid. Shri Sandeep Singh was asked to come with the remaining amount on 26.06.1999. On 26.06.1999 he contacted the Respondent No.2 and submitted an application for the release of his vehicle, and Respondent No.2 again demanded the remaining amount for releasing the vehicle. On 27.06.1999 Shri Sandeep Singh contacted the Respondent No.2, who again demanded the balance amount for releasing his vehicle.

6. Thereafter, Shri Sandeep Singh reported the matter to the Anti Corruption Branch (ACB) and a trap was organized by ACB comprising Inspector Y.S. Negi, Panch witness Shri Santosh Sharma, the complainant and other staff members of ACB. After observing all necessary formalities, the complainant along with the Panch witness Shri Santosh Sharma went to the Respondent No.2 to handover the bribe money. Respondent No.2 told him that both the SHO and the Additional SHO had been transferred to District Lines and as such orders for release of the vehicle could not be passed and he did not accept the balance amount on that date, that is on27.06.1999. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 was also transferred to District Lines and as such the trap could not materialize.

7. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 30.11.1999 held the charge against the Respondent No.2 to be substantiated. A copy of the Enquiry Officer’s report was furnished to the Respondent No.2 for representation, if any. Respondent No.2 submitted his representation on 24.12.1999. Upon consideration of the representation and after perusing the materials on record, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order dated 10.02.2000 forfeiting four years approved service of Respondent No.2 permanently and reducing his pay from Rs.4305/- to Rs.3965/- p.m. in the time scale of pay for a period of four years with immediate effect during which period Respondent No.2 would not earn his increment and on expiry of this period the reduction would have the effect of postponing future increment.

8. The Respondent No.2’s appeal was rejected by the appellate order dated 31.7.2000.

9. The Tribunal allowing the OA, passed directions to restore the forfeited years of service with all consequential benefits.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed 2 grounds in support of the instant petition:

a) Rule 15(