Acquittal on technical grounds under Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 does not include lack of evidence. The legislature did not provide exceptions for acquittal on grounds such as benefit of doubt or failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt in departmental proceedings.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. Order dated 30th March, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) has led to the filing of the present writ petition by the petitioner.

2. The necessary facts required to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that a FIR No.14/1996 was registered under Sections 395/397/34 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act against the present respondent and three others. We may notice that the respondent has since expired leaving behind his wife and children. After the registration of the FIR, the respondent was dismissed from service by an order dated 21st March, 1996 under Article 311 (2)(b) of the Constitution of India.

3. An appeal against the aforesaid order was rejected which led to filing of OA No. 3070/2002 which was allowed by the Tribunal on 27th August, 2003. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the respondent was reinstated and thereafter placed under suspension.

4. Simultaneously, a disciplinary inquiry was initiated. The respondent was held guilty, dismissed from service and the intervening period was to be treated as “not spent on duty”. This led to filing of the second O.A.

5. The main thrust of the argument and which found favour with the Tribunal was that disciplinary proceedings were conducted against him without taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. The case of the respondent before the Tribunal was that he stood acquitted in the criminal trial and the charges, allegations, facts and evidence in both the proceedings i.e. criminal trial and domestic inquiry were the same. The responded relied upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi & Others v. Satya Dev Singh, CC 10487-10489/2005; order of the Tribunal in HC Jag Saran v. GNCT & Ors., O.A. No. 1296/2003; and Sushil Kumar v. Food Corporation of India & Ors., 2003 (1) Service Cases Today 920.

6. The stand of the petitioner/Government of NCT of Delhi before the Tribunal and also before this Court is that the respondent had been acquitted on account of a technical reason that the star witnesses of the prosecution were not available but in the departmental inquiry, on the basis of evidence, the charges against the respondent stood proved.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the acquittal of the respondent was on a technical ground as the prosecution was not able to produce a single witness to support its case. Such a situation, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, would stand covered under the exception to Rule 12 contained in Sub-rule (a) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the case of Nawal Kishore, who was also a co-accused with the respondent, a writ petition, being Joint Commissioner of Police v. Nawal Kishore, W.P (C) No. 7541/2007 was filed by the department against the order of the Tribunal, where the matter has been remanded back for fresh hearing. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that another co-accused had died prior to initiation of the inquiry and keeping in view his family conditions, no further action was taken in the matter.

8. Mr. Sagar, learned counsel for the respondent, points out that the case of Nawal Kishore was covered by Rule 12 (b), (c) and (d) and not Rule 12 (a) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980.

9. At this stage, Mr. Sagar, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the respondent is willing to forgo back wages and consequential benefits, but would only pray that the widow of the deceased be granted pension from the date of his death. On the merits of the matter, it is submitted that reading of the order dated 3rd February, 2004 passed by the department would show that the department did not take recourse to Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 but,