CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI O.A. No. 4883/2024 Reserved on: 26.09.2025.

Pronounced on: 17.10.2025.

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)

Sandeep Kumar, Age-29 Years S/o Sh. Hira Lal, R/o- Madhu Vihar, Ward No. 5, Near Inder Kirana Store, District- Rewari, Haryana-123401 … Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan)

Versus

1. Union of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, NDCC-II Building, Jai Singh Road, Near Jantar Mantar, New Delhi-110 001

2. The Commissioner of Police DAP Delhi Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi

3. The Addl. Commissioner of Police Eastern Range, Delhi Through The Commissioner of Police Jai Singh Road, New Delhi

4. The Dy. Commissioner of Police Shahdara District, Delhi Through The Commissioner of Police Jai Singh Road, New Delhi … Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. U Srivastava)

O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A): -

By way of the present O.A. filed u/s 19 of the AT Act, 1985, the applicant, in Para 8 of the O.A., has prayed for the following reliefs: -

“8.1 To quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 26.05.2023 whereby the extreme punishment i.e. dismissal from service has been imposed upon the applicant by invoking the power under Art. 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India and order dated 19.09.2024 whereby the appeal of the applicant is rejected by the respondents and to further direct the respondent to reinstate the applicant in the service with all consequential benefits including seniority & promotion and pay & allowances.

Or/and Any other relief which this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant.”

2. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit opposing the claim of the applicant and have prayed for dismissal of the present Original Application. The applicant has also filed his rejoinder denying the contention of the counter affidavit and reiterated his claim in the OA.

3. The brief facts of the present case are that the applicant was appointed as a Constable in the Delhi Police on 10.05.2018. It is further stated that the applicant has a family to support, and the present employment is the sole source of income for him and his family. The applicant contends that he was falsely implicated in FIR No. 77/2023 dated 11.03.2023, registered under Sections 384, 323, and 34 of the IPC at Police Station, Anand Vihar. Pursuant to the said FIR, he was placed under suspension with effect from 11.03.2023 vide order dated 14.03.2023. He further contends that, to his utter dismay, the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the DCP, Shahdara District, imposed the extreme penalty of dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority exercised the power under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, thereby dispensing with the departmental enquiry and directly imposing the punishment of dismissal upon the applicant. The reasons recorded by the Disciplinary Authority for dispensing with the departmental enquiry are reproduced herein below:–

“The act committed by Constable (Exe.) Sandeep Kumar, No. 2070/SHD (PIS No. 28181427) has not only tarnished the image and brought disgrace to the organization but also demoralized other police personnel. The misconduct committed by the above said defaulter has put the entire police force to shame. Such misconduct cannot be tolerated in any disciplined organization like Delhi Police whose basic duty is to protect the life and property of the citizens of the society.

The facts and the circumstances of the case are so serious that it will not be reasonably practicable to conduct a regular departmental enquiry against the defaulter as there is reasonable belief that the witnesses may not come forward to depose against him owing to his influential position. It also calls for great courage to depose against the desperate persons and the task becomes more acute and difficult where the police personnel co