Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2795
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HON’BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, J, HON’BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, A
Harinder Singh Sekhon – Appellant
Versus
Ut Police Chandigarh – Respondent
O.A./103/2025
Sh. Rohit Seth, Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC for respdt. No. 1, Sh. Arvind Moudgil for respdts. No. 2 to 5
The Tribunal cannot entertain an Original Application while an appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies.
Headnote:(A) A.T. Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Punjab Police Rules - Rule 16.29 - Disciplinary proceedings - The applicant challenged the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority in imposing a punishment of reduction in rank, claiming it was illegal and arbitrary. The applicant's appeal against the punishment was pending, and the Tribunal found the Original Application to be premature. (Paras 1, 8, 13)
(B) Jurisdiction - The Tribunal held that it cannot entertain the Original Application while the appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, emphasizing the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies. (Paras 11, 13)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a police officer, was subjected to disciplinary action based on allegations of corruption, leading to a reduction in rank. The applicant contended that the proceedings were without jurisdiction and that he had not been found guilty of any wrongdoing. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal determined that the applicant's appeal was pending and thus the Original Application was premature, directing the respondents to decide the appeal within eight weeks. (Paras 13, 14)
Issues: The main issues included the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority and the maintainability of the Original Application given the pending appeal. (Paras 1, 9)
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal ruled that the existence of a pending appeal precludes the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the Original Application, reinforcing the principle of exhausting available remedies before seeking judicial intervention. (Paras 11, 13)
Result: Original Application disposed of with directions.
ORDER
Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):
1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the A.T. Act , 1985 against the following:-
(i) Against Summary of Allegations dated 24.08.2023 (Annexure A-5), Charge Sheet dated 07.05.2024 (Annexure A-10) and Show Cause Notice dated 16.12.2024 (Annexure A-7), issued with approval of respondent No. 5 being without jurisdiction and authority, against the rule position and as such being illegal and arbitrary.
(ii) Against Order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure A-1) vide which the respondent No. 5 has imposed the punishment of reduction in rank as Sub-Inspector on applicant while invoking Rule 16.29 of Punjab Police Rules, without jurisdiction and authority, against the rule position and as such being illegal and arbitrary.
2. The factual matrix of the case at hand is that the applicant joined as Probationer ASI in year 1997, was promoted as Sub-Inspector in the year 2005 and as Inspector on 05.06.2015 by DIG. As per Rule 12.1, proviso to rule 16.1 (2) of PPR and Standing Order No. 44.2023, the Appointing Authority of applicant is DIG.
3. It has been stated in the OA that vide Verification report dated 31.07.2023 by CBI, case was registered under Section 120-B of IPC, Section 7 & 7A and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Constable Mr. Pawan, Bablu Dubey and Koki (Private Persons) and in the concluding para, it was specifically mentioned that the role of other suspect (i.e. applicant) will be looked into during investigation. In the Final Report under Section 173(8) CrPC dated 29.02.2024 before the Special Judge CBI, Chandigarh, it was stated that during investigation, no direct call/conversation of the applicant was found with complainant and other accused persons. DSP/CID-cum- Enquiry Officer issued Summary of Allegations dated 24.08.2023 based upon complaint of Deepak Banur on basis of suspicion of role of applicant in the alleged demand of money.
4. An FIR dated 14.02.2024 was registered against the applicant and his wife who is also serving as Inspector in U.T. Police Chandigarh, on complaint of Addl. SP, CBI under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) OF pc Act, 1988 and corresponding to Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(b) & 12 of PC Act, 1988 for amassing of disproportionate wealth w.e.f. 01.01.2017 to 28.02.2021. The CBI authorities called the applicant in this regard many times and he has been able to explain each and every penny.
5. It is further stated in the OA that the SSP issued charge sheet dated 07.05.2024 to applicant on the basis of suspicion of role of applicant in allegation of demanding illegal gratification by Constable Pawan to which the applicant supplied his reply dated 24.05.2024. The Enquiry Officer submitted his Report dated 31.05.2024 concluding that no direct call/conversation of the applicant was found but his conduct is suspected in the facts and circumstances and therefore, the charge is proved against the applicant. Show Cause Notice dated 16.12.2024 of proposed penalty of reduction in rank was issued to the applicant to which applicant submitted reply. The SSP vide order dated 24.12.2024 imposed the punishment of reduction in rank of Sub-Inspector on applicant after personal hearing. The applicant submitted appeal dated 24.12.2024 followed by reminder.
6. It is alleged by the applicant in the OA that the respondent No. 4 is sitting over the appeal of the applicant and not protecting the honour, dignity and interest of applicant till final disposal. Hence this OA.
7. When the case was taken up at admission stage on 27.01.2025, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant has attended the inquiry proceedings in furtherance of the impugned charge memo and only thereafter the impugned punishment order has been passed by the disciplinary authority. Learned counsel for the respondents has also contested that the applicant has not exhausted the remedies available to him under the Punjab Police Rules and filing the present OA before this T
