Disciplinary authorities must record, in writing, their reasons for determining that a formal inquiry is not reasonably practicable. Dispensing with inquiry requirements is an exception requiring rigorous justification, particularly when the underlying conviction, which served as the sole basis for the penalty, is overturned on appeal.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The respondent was working as a Mali gardener with the New Delhi Municipal Council “NDMC” hereinafter.

2. On 17 August 2016, FIR 156/2016 was registered against the respondent under Sections 354/354A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, 1860, in PS Lodhi Colony. Following this, on 26 September 2016, he was suspended. However, the suspension was revoked on 21 December 2017, subject to the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings to be instituted against him.

3. On 3 January 2017, the respondent was convicted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate of having committed offences under Section 354A read with 294 and 509 of the IPC. The sentence was suspended by the learned Additional Sessions Judge “ASJ” hereinafter, in appeal, on 18 January 2017.

4. Even while the sentence imposed on the respondent thus stood suspended, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent requiring him to show cause as to why he be not removed from service. He responded to the show cause notice. Thereafter, on 5 September 2018, the respondent was removed from service under Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 “CCS (CCA) Rules” hereinafter without holding an inquiry, on the ground that the allegations against him, which formed subject matter of the criminal proceedings, involved moral turpitude.

5. The respondent preferred an appeal thereagainst. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 26 December 2018.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal “Tribunal” hereinafter by way of OA 929/2019.

7. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner/NDMC contended that there was a distinction between suspension of sentence and stay of conviction. It was submitted that the order dated 18 January 2017 of the learned ASJ merely suspended the sentence of the respondent and did not stay his conviction. So long as his conviction remained, the NDMC contended that they were well within their rights to remove him from service under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules read with Office Memorandum dated 29 November 1966 of the Department of Personnel and Training “DoPT” hereinafter as amended on 19 September 1975. It was also submitted that the DOPT OM dated 29 November 1966 specifically allowed them to take action against the employee without awaiting the outcome of the appeal.

8. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the Criminal Appeal preferred by the respondent against the order of conviction and sentence of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was also allowed by the learned ASJ by judgment dated 29 March 2019. The learned Tribunal has reproduced the relevant paragraphs from the said decision and we deem it appropriate to do so likewise:

"5. When the depositions of the prosecution witnesses are carefully analyzed, it is noticed that there are various lacunae, shortcomings and inconsistencies in the evidence adduced by the prosecution in its case.

6. PW1 deposed in cross examination that incident took place in the backlane of Market, however, the place of incident is not clearly depicted in the site plan Ex.PW4/B. In the site plan two places are indicated with the alphabets 'A' and 'B' and it is mentioned that point 'A' denotes the place where complainant was standing and point 'B' denotes the place where co