Disciplinary action under Article 311(2)(b) must be supported by robust evidence; reliance on mere presumptions about witness intimidation without conducting an inquiry contravenes natural justice principles.

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

1. In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, the order dated 19.11.2021 (Annexure A1) vide which the applicant has been dismissed from service by invoking provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India has been challenged. Under challenge is also an order dated 11.03.2022 (Annexure A2) vide which the applicant’s statutory appeal has been rejected by the respondents. The applicant has filed the present O.A. seeking the following relief(s):-

“ 8.1 To set aside order dated 19.11.2021 whereby the extreme punishment of dismissal from service is inflicted upon the applicant and order dated 11.03.2022 whereby the statutory appeal of the applicant has been rejected and to further direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant back in service with all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion and pay and allowance.

And/or Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also awarded to the applicant.”

2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance we have also perused the pleadings available on record.

3. Undisputed facts of the case are that while working as Sub Inspector (Executive) under the respondents, the applicant along with others, namely, Constable Amit Kumar Yadav, was involved in a case FIR No. 461/2021 registered at PS Paharganj, Delhi, dated 19.11.2021 under Section 364A / 392 / 397/ 412/ 34 of the IPC. In view of the same, a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the respondents and such preliminary inquiry concluded the act of the applicant and also of the co-accused/co-delinquent (Constable Amit Kumar Yadav) as gross misconduct and unbecoming of a Police officer. After going through the report of such preliminary inquiry the competent authority came to the conclusion that the applicant deliberately and intentionally involved himself in the said case FIR for abducting and ransom and therefore, his conduct in the police organization was found likely to cause irreparable loss to the functioning and credibility of the respondents’ organization. In this view, the applicant and the said Constable Amit Kumar Yadav were dismissed from service by invoking provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India . The said Amit Kumar Yadav approached this Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 1412/2023 and a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal consisting one of us (Hon’ble Mr. RN Singh, Member (J)) vide order dated 06.09.2024 allowed the said O.A. No. 1412/2023 titled Amit Kumar Yadav Versus GNCTD and Ors. It is also undisputed that the directions of the Tribunal in the case of Amit Kumar Yadav has since been implemented by the respondents and has attained finality.

4. Mr. Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the co-accused/co-delinquent Constable Amit Kumar Yadav has identical disciplinary and appellate orders. He submits that the case of Amit Kumar Yadav has since been adjudicated by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1412/2023 (supra), the present O.A. deserves to be allowed in similar terms. He has further added that as is apparent from the impugned orders, the dismissal order has been passed on the basis of the findings of the preliminary inquiry which has concluded the alleged act of the applicant and the said co-accused as gross misconduct and unbecoming of a police officer, and the applicant deliberately and willfully involved in a criminal case. In view of what has been held in various judgments referred to and relied upon in the case of Amit Kumar Yadav, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. He has also argued that the crim