The court established that the charge in the departmental inquiry, based on the influence of liquor, was different from the criminal charge, and therefore, the punishment imposed was justified.

G.S. SISTANI, J

1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 11.3.2016 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (in short "the Tribunal") in O.A.No.1825/2015, by which the OA filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed.

4. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of the present writ petition are that the petitioner initially joined as a Constable in the Delhi Police and thereafter he joined the Excise Department on deputation.

5. It is alleged that on 6.11.2006, an FIR was registered against the petitioner on a false and concocted charge of outraging the modesty of a woman under the influence of liquor, pursuant to which he was arrested. On 26.5.2010, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the petitioner requested the Inquiry Officer to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance till the conclusion of the criminal trial, however, this request of the petitioner was not acceded to. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 31.3.2011 concluding that only the charge of "consumption of liquor" stands proved against the petitioner.

6. As per the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer has reached to a wrongful conclusion as no charge of consumption of liquor was framed.

7. On 2.5.2011, the Disciplinary Authority while affirming the view taken by the Inquiry Officer imposed a major punishment of withholding of next increment temporarily for a period of one year. Meanwhile, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Courts, acquitted the petitioner of all the criminal charges vide order dated 26.11.2012. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority thereby imposing major punishment, however, the said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 2.1.2014. Since the petitioner was denied promotion on 16.9.2014 in a DPC List-C-2014 on the ground of his being "Unfit", he approached the Tribunal by filing O.A., which stands dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has failed to take into account that the petitioner has been acquitted both, by the Inquiry Officer and by the Criminal Court, of the substantive charge, i.e. outraging the modesty of a woman, which was framed against him. Counsel further submits that in the absence of a specific charge having been framed against the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Tribunal have erred in holding him guilty and awarding him punishment of withholding of next increment for a period of one year.

9. Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents and the Tribunal have failed to take into account Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. It is contended that once the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal court of all the charges, he could not have been punished on the same charge or on a different charge by the Department. Counsel further submits that the Tribunal has failed to take into account that the petitioner did not consume liquor during his duty hours and he was found to be under the influence of liquor at the time of his arrest by which time he was not on duty.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India And Others, reported at (2006) 5 SCC 88, more particularly paras 14 and 23, in support of his contention that a definite charge would have been framed against the petitioner herein. Paras 14 and 23 read as under:

“14. From a perusal of the Enquiry Report, it appears to us that the disciplinary authorities proceeded on a wrong premise. The Appellant was principally charged for non-maintenance of ACE-8 Register. He was not charged for theft or misappropriation of 4000 kgs. of telegraph copper wire or misutilization thereof. I f he was to be proceeded against f