Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi OA No. 3147/2025 Reserved on: 04.12.2025 Pronounced on: 15.12.2025 Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

Hon’ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)

Ex. Constable (Exe.) Chand Prakash PIS No. 28900224 S/o Shri Late Shri Sheesh Ram Aged about 56 years R/o House No. 54, Madangir Village New Delhi-110062 … Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. Nilansh Gaur)

VERSUS

1. Commissioner of Police Police Headquarters Jai Singh Road New Delhi, Delhi 110001

2. Deputy Commissioner of Police

7^th Batallion, DAP Malviya Nagar, Police Complex New Delhi-110017 … Respondents (By Advocate: Dr. Dharam Deshna)

O R D E R Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

By way of the present Original Application (OA) filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged order dated 30.05.2025 whereby the respondents have rejected his representation made against the order of premature retirement under FR 56(j) and Rule 42 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. Under challenge is also an order dated 21.10.2024 prematurely retiring the applicant by invoking the provisions of FR 56(J) and Rule

42 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021.

2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:

“8.1 quash and set aside the impugned order of pre-mature retirement dated 21.10.2024 at Annexure A-2.

8.2 quash and set aside the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the respondents conveying the decision of the Representation Committee rejecting the representation of the applicant at Annexure A-1.

8.3 declare the action of the respondents in pre-maturely retiring the applicant under FR 56 (j) and Rule 42 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 as illegal and arbitrary the same being punitive in nature and passed as a shortcut to disciplinary proceedings amounting to double jeopardy and direct the respondents to re- instate the applicant in service from the date of pre-mature retirement i.e. 21.10.2024 and grant all consequential benefits to the applicant including seniority, continuity of service, pay and allowances etc.

8.4 any other relief that the Ld. Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. In response to notice, the respondents have filed counter reply wherein they have disputed and denied the claim of the applicant. The applicant has filed rejoinder and has reiterated his claim.

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

5. Undisputed facts are that the applicant was appointed as a Constable in Delhi Police on 11.05.1990. The applicant was involved in a case registered against him vide FIR No. 379/99 under section 323/509 IPC dated 17.07.1999 registered at PS Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi. He was later on acquitted in the said case by the Hon’ble Court of competent jurisdiction. The applicant was awarded punishment departmentally. The applicant was involved in another FIR No. 439/2012 under section 308/452/323/324/506/34 IPC, PS Ambedkar Nagar dated 25.12.2012. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the applicant on the same allegations as in the criminal case and the applicant was exonerated in the departmental inquiry. The criminal case is still pending trial in the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Saket, New Delhi. Subsequently, the applicant was served with the impugned order dated 21.10.2024 retiring him prematurely by invoking the provisions of Rule FR 56(j) and Rule 42 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. Being aggrieved by the said order of premature retirement, the applicant preferred a representation/appeal to the Representation Committee on 26.11.2024 followed by a reminder dated 16.04.2025. The Representation Committee rejected the representation of the applicant vide its order dated 30.05.2025, which is also under challenge in the present OA.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that despite exoneration in the departmental inquiry on the same set of allegations as in the crimin