$~44 to 46 & 48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 14.03.2024

44.

+ W.P.(C) 63/2023 & CM APPL. 163/2023 (Stay)

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel with Mrs. Tania Ahlawat and Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Advocates.

versus MEENA KUMARI ..... Respondent Through:

45.

+ W.P.(C) 3544/2023 & CM APPL. 13758/2023 -Stay.

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI POLICE & ORS.

..... Petitioners Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel with Mrs. Tania Ahlawat and Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Advocates.

versus VIJENDER SINGH ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pankaj Yadav, Advocate.

46.

+ W.P.(C) 3844/2023 & CM APPL. 14916/2023 -Stay.

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI POLICE & ORS.

..... Petitioners Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel with Mrs. Tania Ahlawat and Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Advocates.

versus KRISHAN KUMAR Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 63/2023 and conn. Page 1 of 9 ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pankaj Yadav, Advocate.

48.

+ W.P.(C) 7000/2023 AND CM APPL. 27210/2023 (Stay) & CAV

270/2023 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel with Mrs. Tania Ahlawat and Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Advocates.

versus ANIL KUMAR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)

1. The present batch of petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seek to assail four similar orders passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in four different original applications. Vide these impugned order, the learned Tribunal has allowed all the four original applications (OAs) preferred by the respondents by setting aside orders dismissing them from service.

2. For the sake of convenience, we are hereinafter referring only to the facts of W.P. (C) 7000/2023.

3. On 01.10.2019, while the respondent was working as a constable with petitioners, an FIR, being FIR no. 195/2019, was registered under Sections 409/420/120B of the IPC at Police Station Economic Office Wing against him and three other persons, who are Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 63/2023 and conn. Page 2 of 9 the respondents in the three other connected petitions. Immediately upon the FIR being registered, the respondent was arrested on 09.10.2019 and dismissed from service on the very same day by an order passed by the petitioners under to Article 311 (b) (2) of the Constitution of India.

4. Being aggrieved, the respondent approached the learned Tribunal by way of O. A. No. 1247/2020 assailing the aforesaid dismissal order, which OA was allowed vide order dated 01.12.2022. Vide the impugned orders, the learned Tribunal, while setting aside the dismissal orders dated 09.10.2019 passed, has directed that the respondent be kept under suspension till conclusion of the departmental enquiry against him for which liberty was granted to the petitioners. Further, the Tribunal has also granted the petitioner liberty to initiate departmental enquiry against the respondents as per law. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present petition.

5. In support of the petitions, Mrs. Ahlawat, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned orders are wholly perverse as the learned Tribunal, while passing these orders, has failed to appreciate that the respondents had committed grave and serious misconduct which had undermined the image of the Delhi Police in the eyes of the general public and, therefore, the petitioners were justified in terminating them without holding any enquiry. She further submits that the learned Tribunal has allowed the OAs preferred by simply relying on its earlier decisions in OA No. 2097/2019 titled Neeraj Kumar v Commissioner of Police & Anr and in OA No. 702/2019 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 63/2023 and conn. Page 3