Back
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.3600/2013
New Delhi, this the 19th day of December, 2018
Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
HC Hans Raj, Age 50 years,
S/o Shri Sardar Singh,
R/o-113, Gali No.3,
Kamal Vihar, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi.
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCTD through,
The Hon’ble L.G., GNCTD,
Rajniwas,
5, Shamnath Marg,
Delhi.
2. The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
Naya Sachivalaya,
New Delhi.
3. The Commissioner of Police (AP),
Delhi Police,
PHQ, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
4. The Addl. Commissioner of Police,
Through the Commissioner of Police (AP),
PHQ, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
2
OA No.3600/2013
5. The Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Through
The Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocates : Shri K.M. Singh)
ORDER (ORAL)
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman :-
The applicant was working as Head Constable in the
Delhi Police. On 04.09.2006, FIR No.68/06 was
registered against him alleging offences punishable
under Section 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption (for
short, POC) Act r/w 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for
short IPC). The department on its part, initiated
disciplinary proceedings against him by issuing a
summary of allegations on 10.07.2008. Through an
order dated 11.05.2011, the disciplinary authority
imposed the punishment of forfeiture of three years of
approved service. That order of punishment became
final.
2. The Criminal Court, which tried the applicant with
reference to FIR No.68/2006, convicted him through
3
OA No.3600/2013
judgment dated 27.04.2012. Taking the same into
account, the disciplinary authority passed an order
dated 22.08.2012, dismissing the applicant from service
by invoking Rule 11(1) of Delhi Police (Punishment &
Appeal) (Amendment) Rules, 2011. The appeal
preferred against that was rejected. Hence this OA.
3. The
applicant contends
that the
disciplinary
authority has already passed an order, imposing the
punishment of forfeiture of three years of approved
service and the punishment imposed through impugned
order amounts to double jeopardy. It is also stated that
Rule 11, as it stood before 2011, contains a proviso to
the effect thattill the result of the first appeal that may
have been filled by such police officer is known, the
punishment contemplated under that Rule cannot be
imposed;
and
the
amendment
caused
through
Notification dated 30.11.2011 was not placed before the
Parliament, as required under Section 148 of the Delhi
Police Act, 1978. According to him, the proviso still
operates and the impugned order becomes untenable.
4
OA No.3600/2013
4. The respondents filed counter affidavit opposing the
OA. It is stated that though the disciplinary
proceedings were initiated and punishment was
imposed against the applicant, the necessity to pass
impugned order arose on account of the conviction
ordered by the Trial Court and that the same does not
amount to double jeopardy. It is also stated that the
prescribed procedure was followed at every level. As
regards, omission of proviso to Rule 11, it is stated that
the amendment was placed before the Lok Sabha and
Rajya Sabha.
5. We heard Shri Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel for
applicant and Shri K.M. Singh, learned counsel for
respondents.
6. It is a matter of record that two sets of proceedings
were initiated against the applicant, in relation to an
incident of alleged acceptance of bribe. FIR No 68/06
was registered by the concerned police. On the
departmental side, the summary of allegations was
served upon the applicant on 10.07.2008. The
disciplinary
proceedings
were
commenced
and
5
OA No.3600/2013
concluded much before the criminal case. Through an
order dated 11.05.2011, the disciplinary authority
imposed the punishment of the forfeiture of th
