Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13110
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, A. Koan, JJ
Vijender Singh, Ex HC (Ex.) of Delhi Police – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Police – Respondent
O.A. No. 2988/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Anil Singal
For the Respondents: Mr. Manish Kumar
The court emphasized that dismissing an employee without a departmental inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) lacks due process and requires compelling justification, which was not established in this case.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19; Constitution of India - Article 311(2)(b) - Dismissal from service - Applicant sought to quash wrongful dismissal without due process, claiming he was falsely implicated in a FIR - The disciplinary authority's invocation of Article 311(2)(b) was deemed unsustainable as no compelling reasons were given for dispensing with a departmental inquiry - Dismissal order lacked justifiable reasons and was a violation of the principles of natural justice. (Paras 6.1, 6.3, 8.1)
(B) The court asserted that the dismissal order was passed based on assumptive reasoning and failed to provide a sound basis for the belief that witnesses were too intimidated to testify, contradicting established legal standards regarding departmental inquiries. (Paras 6.4, 6.5, 6.7)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was dismissed under Article 311(2)(b) for alleged misconduct related to financial irregularities, based on a FIR. Arguments were raised suggesting that the dismissal was improper due to lack of a formal inquiry and insufficient justification for the procedural shortcut. (Paras 2.1, 2.2)
Findings of Court:
The court held that the dismissal orders did not adhere to the legal requirements for invoking Article 311(2)(b) and thus quashed the dismissal and appellate orders, allowing for consequential benefits. (Paras 8.1, 8.2)
Issues: The main issues centered on whether the dismissal without inquiry was justified and if the reasons provided by the disciplinary authority met legal standards. (Paras 6.3, 6.4)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that dismissal based solely on the notion of witness intimidation without concrete evidence was improper, emphasizing the necessity for due process within disciplinary procedures. (Paras 6.3, 6.6)
Result: The dismissal order dated 22.10.2020 and Appellate Order dated 07.09.2021 are quashed, and the applicant is entitled to reinstatement with benefits subject to certain conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of complaint and dismissal. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments against dismissal based on evidence. (Para 3) |
| 3. counterarguments by the respondents. (Para 4) |
| 4. court’s analysis and legal reasoning. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :-
In the present OA, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , the applicant seeks the following reliefs:
“1 To quash and set aside Order of dismissal dt. 22.10.2020 & Appellate Order dt. 7.9.2021 and
2 To direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service with all consequential benefits including promotion/seniority and arrears of pay since the applicant is not able to get job despite his best efforts and is unemployed.
3. To award costs in favor of the applicant and
4. To pass any order or orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case.”
2. The brief facts of the case as narrated by the learned counsel for the applicant are as under:
2.1. The applicant was holding the post of Head Constable in the office of the respondents. On being falsely implicated in FIR No.195/19 dt.1.10.2019 u/s 409/420/120-B IPC PS EOW, Delhi, the applicant was illegally dismissed from service under Article 311 (2) (b) vide Order dated 22.10.2020, dispensing with the enquiry on the same allegations and on the basis of which criminal case was registered, investigated and Charge-sheet also filed on 29.12.2019. The relevant portion of the order of dismissal dated 22.10.2020, reads as under:-
“…In view of the above facts, it revealed that HC (Exe.) Vijender Singh No.740/OD, PIS No. 28950205 has committed a grave misconduct in collusion with W/SI Meena Kumari No.672/D, Const. Anil Kumar No.3131/OD and Const. Krishan Kumar No.1929/OD with ill intention and siphoned off huge amounts of money meant to be credited to other Police personnel’s accounts. Prima facie the facts have revealed that the actions of HC (Exe.) Vijender Singh No. 740/OD, PIS No. 28950205 amounts to negligence, gross misconduct and are highly unbecoming of a police officer. HC (Exe.) Vijender Singh No.740/OD, PIS No. 28950205 being in influential position, holding a proper detailed enquiry is impracticable as the affected police personnel would not be in a position to depose against him. His misconduct is such that if he is allowed to continue in the police force, it would be detrimental to public interest and shall further tarnish the image of the police force in society. He did not perform his duty in a professional manner within the legal periphery. He has indulged himself in the most abominable act, which is not expected from an official of a uniformed force. Though the facts surfaced out during enquiry, it requires a prompt and instant punitive action & it will not be reasonably practicable to conduct a regular departmental enquiry against HC (Exe.) Vijender Singh No.740/OD, PIS No. 28950205, as there is a reasonable belief that the defaulter will influence the statements/deposition of witnesses. I am personally satisfied that conducting a regular DE against HC (Exe.) Vijender Singh No.740/OD, PIS No.28950205 will take a considerable long period and it is not practicably possible.
Further, the shameful act committed by HC (Exe.) Vijender Singh No.740/OD, PIS No. 28950205 has not only tarnished the image and brought disgrace to the organization, but also demoralized other police personnel. Therefore, in order to send a clear message to such undesirable elements in the police force and to maintain discipline as well as to prevent recurrence of such incidents. Hence, it has become necessary to dismiss HC (Exe.) Vijender Singh No.740/OD, PIS No. 28950205, as he is completely unfit for police service. Hence, such corrupt and dishonest person should be immediately dismissed from public service.
Therefore, I, Dr. A. Koan, Dy. Commissioner of Police, Outer Distt., Delhi, hereby ordered to dismiss HC (Exe.) Vijender Singh No.740/OD, PIS No.289
