An acquittal in criminal proceedings based on the failure of the prosecution to prove charges is not an acquittal on 'technical grounds' within the meaning of Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, and thus precludes the sustainability of departmental proceedings on the same charges.

O R D E R (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

1. This is the second round of litigation.

2. In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):-

“(a) Declare and hold that the applicant is entitled for the benefit of Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 as his case does not fall under any of the exception clauses enumerated under Rule 12 (supra). And

(b) Quash & set aside the impugned Order dated 29.05.2025, Penalty order dated 12.07.2021, Order dated 25.02.2022, Order dated 24.02.2022, Findings dated 04.06.2021 and Charge dated 27.05.2021 referred to in Para-1 of OA. And

(c) Direct the respondents to restore the forfeited service of the Applicant, as it was never forfeited and accord him all the consequential benefits viz. Restoration of his pay, Promotion/ Seniority, fixation of pay, difference in pay, financial upgradation under MACP/ AGP Scheme along with interest @ GPF rates and removal of applicant‟s name from the secret list of doubtful integrity since inception etc. And

(d) Award cost in favour of the Applicant and against the respondents. And/ or

(e) Pass any further order, which this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit just equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The respondents have filed counter reply disputing and denying the claim of the applicant. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the claim and the grounds pleaded in support thereof.

4. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, we have taken up the matter for consideration and disposal.

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

6. The undisputed facts of the case are that while working as Head Constable (Driver) under the respondents, the applicant‟s name was involved in a case FIR No. 0327/15 dated 25.07.2015 u/s 27/54/59 Arms Act and 302/306 IPC registered with PS Kharkhoda, Sonipat, Haryana. For the same allegations as contained in the case FIR a departmental proceeding was initiated against the applicant and on conclusion of such departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority had awarded a punishment vide order dated 12.07.2021. The statutory appeal against such order was rejected and the Appellate Authority had confirmed the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. The applicant faced the trial in the said case FIR and he was acquitted by the learned trial court vide order/judgment dated 08.09.2022. The order of acquittal attained finality. In light of the provisions of Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), the applicant preferred a representation requesting the respondents for revisiting the order of penalty passed on the conclusion of the departmental proceeding. However, the said representation of the applicant was rejected by the respondents vide their order dated 30.09.2024 stating that the same cannot be acceded to. Aggrieved by the said order of the respondents, the applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 4446/2024. In the said O.A. it has been the specific stand of the respondents that there is no provision to revisit the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and there is only one provision of appeal against the original order of punishment pass