The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary action against a public servant after a criminal conviction is distinct and permissible under Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

The petitioner-Tariq Ali Khan in the present writ petition impugns the order dated 11.09.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 747/2008 rejecting the plea of double jeopardy as untenable.

2. The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the Delhi Police, was posted in the departure wing of the International Airport on 11th September, 1998, the date on which the incident leading to the present controversy took place. FIR No. 433/1998 was registered against the petitioner at the Police Station, Indira Gandhi International Airport.

3. By judgment dated 12th February, 2007, the petitioner was convicted under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short).This judgment refers to the statement of Era Gupta and Deepak Gupta, who had deposed as PW-2 and PW-3, respectively. Era Gupta and her husband Deepak Gupta were travelling to Mauritius, and after collecting the boarding passes from the Airline’s counter and filling up the embarkation form, had proceeded for immigration check. The petitioner, who was stationed at the immigration desk, had questioned Deepak Gupta as to the number of dollars he was carrying and had told them that they cannot travel to Mauritius and Singapore for they did not have the visa to go to Singapore. The petitioner had taken their passports, and had threatened that a case would be foisted against them. Era Gupta professed that under threat, her husband had parted and paid US$ 500 to the petitioner. Thereafter, Era Gupta and Deepak Gupta were off-loaded and allowed to leave the airport. Era Gupta and Deepak Gupta returned to home and informed their parents. On examining the passports, they noticed that the page, on which the visa for Singapore was stamped, had been torn. Rajiv Bajaj (PW-4), who was working as the Station Manager at the Airport, affirmed that two passengers were unable to travel because of some problem and their baggage was returned. Other witnesses too corroborated the versions given by Era and Deepak Gupta. It was held petitioner, had intentionally threatened and instilled fear in Era Gupta and her husband Deepak Gupta of implicating them in a false case, and had thereby dishonestly induced them to deliver US$ 500. The judgment, however, had acquitted the petitioner from the charge that he had torn the page with the Singapore visa from the passport, as it was not proved beyond doubt who had torn the said page. The page, undoubtedly, was torn. Prosecution under the Passport Act, 1967 failed for want of sanction. The order on sentence dated 2nd June, 2007, noting that the prosecution had continued for 9 years, sentenced the petitioner to imprisonment till rising of the court and fine of Rs.50,000/-, which was to be paid as compensation to Era Gupta (PW-2) for the harassment suffered by her.

4. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 21st August, 2007. The conviction was maintained by the High Court and the Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

5. Consequent to the said conviction, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch passed an order dated 9th January, 2008 recording that the petitioner had been convicted under Section 384 IPC in the aforesaid FIR on 26th February, 2007 and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and fine of Rs.50,000/-, which was to be paid as compensation, and the fact that the first appeal preferred by the petitioner had been dismissed. Considering the conduct of the petitioner, which has led to his conviction, the order holds that the petitioner's further retention in police service was undesirable. In exercise of power conferred under Rule 11(1) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 read with Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution of India, the petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect.

6. The petitioner had preferred an appeal, which met with an ord