VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 31.05.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/Tribunal) in O.A. No.3548/2015. The Tribunal has dismissed the said OA preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner had assailed the order dated 05.09.2012 passed by the respondents dismissing him from service by resort to clause (b) of the 2nd proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, as well as the appellate order dated 26.08.2015, and the order dated 08.09.2015 directing the petitioner to vacate the government accommodation. The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to reinstate him back in service from the date of his dismissal with all consequential benefits and to treat his suspension period between 08.08.2012 to 05.09.2012 as spent on duty.

2. The petitioner was serving as a constable in the Delhi Police. On 07.06.2012, the petitioner was absent from duty purportedly on account of medical rest. The petitioner and one other constable, namely, Ajeet Singh, while they were posted in Special Unit, Crime Branch were arrested along with two civilians, namely, Harender Yadav of Distt. Muzaffar Nagar, U.P. and Baldev Singh of Distt. Bharat Pur (Rajasthan) by U.P. police in the night of 7/8.08.2012 for kidnapping for ransom, forgery and impersonation and also under the Arms Act. Three criminal cases were registered against them. It was alleged against the accused – including the petitioner, that they had kidnapped one Sushil Bansal, Executive Engineer, Jal Board from his residence for ransom, for which FIR No.692/2012 u/s 364A IPC was registered at PS Kotwali, Bijnour. During personal search of the petitioner, one identity card of Delhi Police and one fake identity card of CBI No.28882452 having his photograph and identity as Rajender Kumar, SI, CBI and four bank ATM cards, two vehicles registration certificates and two driving licenses, were seized from him. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 08.08.2012.

3. A fact finding inquiry headed by Sh. M.C. Katoch, ACP/Crime Branch was ordered by the Delhi Police. The said ACP/Crime Branch went to Bijnour to conduct the inquiry. Post his inquiry, Mr. Katoch made his report and opined that it was not practicable to hold departmental inquiry against the petitioner, as no one came forward to depose against him and the other co-accused for fear. He also observed that retention of a criminal like the petitioner in Delhi Police would be unjustifiable. Acting on the said report, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime and Railways) vide the impugned order dated 06.09.2012 dismissed the petitioner, as well as the co-accused Ajeet Singh, from service of Delhi Police without holding an inquiry and by resort to clause (b) of the 2nd proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India with immediate effect. The period of suspension between 08.08.2012 and 06.09.2012 was directed to be treated as period not spent on duty for all intents and purposes. The petitioner and the co-accused Ajeet Singh – who was also similarly dismissed, preferred departmental appeals before the appellate authority, namely, the Additional Commissioner of Police. By the impugned order dated 26.08.2015, the same was also dismissed. Consequently, the petitioner preferred the aforesaid O.A.

4. The Tribunal, as aforesaid, did not find merit in the petitioner’s O.A. and dismissed the same. In the course of its decision, the Tribunal examined a host of decisions of the Supreme Court. The relevant discussion found in the impugned order reads as follows:

“11. We have considered the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the pleadings and the documents annexed thereto. The Hon’ble S.C. in a catena of judgment has laid down essential conditions for dispensing with the holding of departmental enquiry. The names of the cases and the principles laid down by th