Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1866

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R.N. Singh, Member (J), B. Anand, Member (A)
Karamveer – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCTD Through the Chief Secretary – Respondent
O.A. No. 3235/2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sachin Chauhan
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Anand, Mr. R K Jain, Ms. Monika Bhargava

Post-acquittal, disciplinary proceedings barred under Rule 12 unless exceptions apply; hostile witnesses do not mean 'won over'; mechanical orders not curable by later pleadings.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 - Rule 12 - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Constitution of India - Article 311(2)(b) - Disciplinary proceedings against police personnel - Acquittal in criminal trial - Prosecution witnesses turning hostile does not equate to witnesses being won over under Rule 12(b) - Acquittal not on technical grounds under Rule 12(a) - Trial court finding no proof of offence precludes application of Rule 12(c) - Impugned orders initiating proceedings without considering Rule 12 set aside as mechanical - Reasons in counter reply cannot cure non-application of mind in orders - Larger public interest cannot override specific exceptions in Rule 12 - Proceedings for same allegations as acquitted FIR not permissible absent Rule 12 exceptions. (Paras 10, 18-22, 29)

(B) Administrative Law - Judicial review of administrative orders - Orders must stand on own reasons; cannot be supported post-facto by pleadings/affidavits unless alternative ground traceable from order/record with notice/opportunity - Distinction from cases involving policy decisions or secured creditors. (Paras 13-16, 23-26)

Facts of the case:
Applicants, working as constables, involved in criminal case under Sections 384, 411, 34 IPC - Arrested and dismissed invoking Article 311(2)(b) - Dismissal set aside by Tribunal with liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings - Acquitted by trial court - Reinstated but proceedings initiated without prejudice - Representations to drop proceedings under Rule 12 rejected mechanically - Challenged orders quashing initiation of departmental inquiry for same incident.

Findings of Court:
Impugned orders dated 05.09.2022 (initiation with summary), 19.09.2022, 05.07.2022 set aside - Applicants entitled to consequential benefits - Compliance within eight weeks.

Issues: Whether disciplinary proceedings permissible post-acquittal absent Rule 12 exceptions; whether mechanical orders curable by counter reply reasons; applicability of hostile witnesses exception.

Ratio Decidendi: Rule 12 bars departmental punishment on same charge post-judicial acquittal unless exceptions (a)-(e) apply - Hostile witnesses ≠ won over; no proof of offence negates suspicion under (c); orders invalid for non-consideration of Rule 12 - Mohinder Singh Gill principle applies, no post-facto validation.

Result: OA allowed.

Table of Content
1. applicants acquitted in criminal case; challenged disciplinary initiation post-reinstatement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. acquittal bars punishment under rule 12; mechanical orders invalid. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. disciplinary proceedings permissible despite acquittal on hostile witnesses; public interest. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
4. hostile witnesses not 'won over' exception; no proof of offence under rule 12(c). (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. orders not upheld by later pleadings; rule 12 strictly governs police acquittals. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
6. impugned orders set aside; applicants entitled to consequential benefits. (Para 29 , 30)

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

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

2. In the present OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have challenged the order dated 05.09.2022 (Annexure A-3) whereby the representation of the applicants (Annexure A-5) has been rejected alongwith summary of allegations, list of witnesses, list of documents etc. Under challenge is also the order dated 05.07.2022 to the extent that without considering the provisions of Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’), the respondents have ordered initiation of departmental proceedings.

3. The applicants have prayed for the following relief in the present OA:

“8.1 To quash and set-aside the order dated 5.9.2022 alongwith Summary of allegation alongwith list of witness and list of document and order dated 19.9.2022 whereby the representation of applicant made against the order dated 5.7.2022 has been rejected.

8.2 To quash and setaside the order dated 5.7.2022 to an extent whereby it does not apply mind on Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rule while reserving its right to take departmental action against the applicants and further the applicant be entitled for all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion and pay and allowances.

AND/OR Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also awarded to the applicant.”

4. The claim of the applicants has been contested by the respondents by filing counter reply. The applicants have filed rejoinder reiterating their claim and the grounds pleaded in support thereof.

5. The undisputed facts are that the applicants while working as Constable under Delhi Police were involved in a criminal case vide FIR No. 165/2017 registered with Police Station Vikas Puri, Delhi under Sections 384, 411, 34 of the IPC. The applicants were arrested in the said case FIR in view of the applicants’ involvement in the said case FIR and taking into consideration these facts, the applicants were dismissed by the respondents from service by invoking the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by their such dismissal, the applicants approached this Tribunal by way of OA No. 3027/2018 titled Karamveer & Others Vs. GNCT of Delhi & others as well as a few other OAs which were decided by this Tribunal vide order/judgment dated 10.02.2022 (Annexure A-7). While allowing the OAs, this Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Disciplinary as well as Appellate Authority and with consequential benefits to the applicants in accordance with the relevant Rules and law on the subject. However, liberty was accorded to the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicants in accordance with law.

6. It is further undisputed that the applicants herein faced trial before the competent learned Trial Court in the said case FIR and vide order/judgment dated 24.09.2020 (Annexure A-6), the applicants were acquitted in the said case FIR.

7. The respondents in compliance of the directions of the Tribunal, contained in the order/judgment dated 10.02.2022 in OA No. 3027/2018 (Supra), reinstated the applica

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1866

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALR.N. Singh, Member (J), B. Anand, Member (A)Karamveer – AppellantVersusGovt. of NCTD Through the Chief Secretary – RespondentO.A. No. 3235/2022

Post-acquittal, disciplinary proceedings barred under Rule 12 unless exceptions apply; hostile witnesses do not mean 'won over'; mechanical orders not curable by later pleadings.

Cases Referred (1)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R.N. Singh, Member (J), B. Anand, Member (A)
Karamveer – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCTD Through the Chief Secretary – Respondent
O.A. No. 3235/2022