Compulsory retirement should not be based solely on pending criminal allegations; a comprehensive assessment of service record is essential to ensure justice.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr.B.Anand, Member (A):

By way of this Original Application (O.A.) filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , the applicant seeks the following relief(s):

“(i) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure – A/1) and the order of the representation dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure A/2).

(ii) direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant back in service with all benefits and allow the applicant to perform duties till his superannuation age;

(iii) May also pass any further order(s), direction(s) as be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice.”

2. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed reply and have disputed and contested the claim of the applicant. The applicant has filed rejoinder and reiterated his claim and the grounds pleaded in support thereof.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant was appointed as a Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police in the year 1991 and has served the department for more than three decades. It is the case of the applicant that throughout his service career he maintained an unblemished record, earned several commendations, and consistently received “Very Good” to “Outstanding” gradings in his Annual Confidential Reports/Annual Performance Appraisal Reports.

4. During the course of his service, the applicant came to be implicated in a criminal case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation vide FIR/RC No. 36(A)/2002 under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , on allegations of demanding and accepting illegal gratification while he was posted at Police Station Hari Nagar. The applicant was tried by the Court of Special Judge (CBI-01), Tis Hazari Courts and was convicted vide judgment dated 22.12.2008. By a separate order dated 24.12.2008, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with fine.

5. Aggrieved by his conviction, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 29/2009 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 14.09.2009, suspended the sentence awarded to the applicant and released him on bail. It is not in dispute that the said criminal appeal is still pending adjudication and the conviction recorded by the trial court has not been set aside. It is further seen that departmental proceedings were initiated against the applicant on the same set of allegations as those forming the subject matter of the criminal case. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer, vide report dated 22.04.2014, held that the charges against the applicant were ‘not proved’. However, notwithstanding the said finding, the disciplinary authority imposed a minor penalty of “forfeiture of one year of approved service for a period of one year”. The applicant preferred an appeal under the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, and the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 29.12.2022, allowed the appeal and exonerated the applicant of all the charges.

6. Subsequently, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 19.09.2024, compulsorily retiring the applicant from service in public interest by invoking the provisions of FR 56(j) and Rule 42 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. Being aggrieved, the applicant submitted a representation/appeal dated 04.10.2024, inter alia contending that the impugned order was contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also in violation of the Standing Orders issued by the Commissioner