J U D G M E N T

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 23.07.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 1467/2007, titled Constable Arvind Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the O.A. filed by the respondent herein, with the following finding:

“15. The OA. therefore, succeeds. The impugned orders i.e. the order dated 29.07.2004, ordering the initiation of departmental enquiry, the findings of the enquiry officer and the orders of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority are quashed and set aside. The Applicant should be reinstated in service forthwith. He would be eligible for all consequential benefits from the date of his dismissal on 3.09.1996 under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. We are giving this direction because in the judgement and order dated 19.11.2003, in

OA No. 1033/2003 by which the order of the Respondents dismissing the Applicant invoking Article 311(2)(b) was quashed, consequential benefits had not been showed. The above directions should be complied with as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.”

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Briefly stated, the facts in which the present petition arises are that the respondent was serving as a Constable in the Delhi Police. During the period 1994 to 1996, three FIRs came to be registered against him. The first being FIR No. 476/1994, registered at Police Station I.P. Estate, under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) relating to the firing from his service revolver resulting in the unfortunate death of Constable Mohd. Rashid (1st FIR); the second being FIR No.682/1995, at Police Station Malviya Nagar, under Sections 452 and 323 of the IPC, alleging house trespass and simple hurt (2nd FIR); and the third being FIR No.21/1996, at Police Station Civil Lines, under Sections 420, 468 and 34 of the IPC, alleging cheating and forgery (3rd FIR).

3. Keeping in view the alleged involvement of the respondent in different criminal cases, the respondent was dismissed from service by the petitioner on 03.09.1996, by invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India.

4. The respondent challenged the same before the learned Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1033/2003, titled Ex. Constable Arvind Kumar v. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs &

Ors.. The learned Tribunal, vide Order dated 19.11.2003, set aside the dismissal, but gave liberty to the petitioner to proceed against the respondent by initiating proper departmental proceedings.

5. Accordingly, departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent on 29.07.2004.

6. The respondent had been acquitted in the criminal case concerning the 2nd FIR, on 01.04.2000. He again approached the learned Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 351/2005, titled Const. Arvind Kumar v. Govt. of NCTD through The Commissioner of Police & Ors., alleging, amongst other things, that the departmental proceedings could not continue against him in view of the said acquittal.

7. The learned Tribunal, vide its Order dated 20.05.2005, allowed the said O.A. in part, directing that the proceedings could not continue with respect to the case involving his acquittal.

8. Consequently, the departmental proceedings continued against the respondent on the following charges:

“i) I, Inspr. Darshan Singh, Addl. SHO/Jama Masjid, Central Distt. Delhi (Enquiry Officer) charge you Const. Arvind Kumar No. 1354/C (now 1583/c), that while you were posted at PS I.P. Estate on 28.11.1994, late Mohd. Rashid No. 1862/C was using official telephone in the Reporting Room of PS. He kept the telephone busy for quite sometime. The Duty Officer W/SI Shashi Bala, objecting to it asked the late Const. Mohd. Rashid No. 1662/C to stop using the telephone but said late Const, did not take note of it and continued using the telephone. W/SI Shashi Bala asked you