1

Item No. 60

O.A. No. 2839/2021

Central Administrative Tribunal

Principal Bench, New Delhi

O.A. No. 2839/2021

This the 19^th day of December, 2022

Hon’ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

VIJENDER SINGH MAL, CONSTABLE (Exe).

AGE ABOUT 35 YRS.

POSTED AT PCR, DELHI., UNDER SUSPENSION

(AT POLICE LINE).

No.2808/SD,7528/DAP (NOW 7134/ PCR)

(PIS No.28101327)

GROUP-"C"

...Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. L.C. Rajput)

Versus

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

DELHI POLICE, PHQ, JAI SINGH ROAD,

NEW DELHI-110001

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,

POLICE CONTROL ROOM,

MAIN POLICE LINE, MODEL TOWN,

DELHI-110009

…Respondents

(By Advocate: Ms. Deepika)

2

Item No. 60

O.A. No. 2839/2021

O R D E R (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J):

In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has

sought the following relief(s):-

3

Item No. 60

O.A. No. 2839/2021

may kindly be passed in favor of the applicant.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was

appointed as Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police on 05.01.2010.

Later, on 17.04.2020, FIR No. 113/2020 U/s 323/376/506

of the IPC was registered against the applicant in P.S. C.R.

Park, South District, New Delhi. Then an order dated

31.03.2021 bearing C.G. No. 9402-9411 was issued wherein

a departmental enquiry against the applicant was ordered

with almost the same charges as in the criminal case.

Aggrieved by the same the applicant submitted an

application dated 28.04.2021 to the Deputy Commissioner

of Police, Police Control Ro`om, Delhi requesting therein

that the departmental enquiry may kindly be put on hold as

the same will prejudice the applicant in criminal case. The

said request was rejected vide order dated 07.05.2021.

Notices were issued to conduct the enquiry. Further, the

applicant filed the representation/appeal against the order

dated 07.05.2021 to the Hon'ble Police Commissioner but

no reply was given nor his grievances were redressed by the

4

Item No. 60

O.A. No. 2839/2021

respondents. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed O.A.

No.1586/2021 before this Tribunal with the prayer that the

Departmental proceedings may kindly be stayed in view of

the fact that a criminal trial has already begun based on the

same/ditto charges in the criminal court. The Tribunal

disposed of the said O.A. with directions to the respondents

to consider the appeal/ representation of the applicant and

to dispose of the same by passing reasoned and speaking

order as expeditiously as possible and in any case within

four weeks from the date of the order. It is stated that the

respondents

neither

considered

nor

decided

the

representation/ appeal of the applicant. Hence the applicant

sent a legal notice dated 20.09.2021 to the respondents to

comply with the order dt 12/08/2021. Aggrieved by the

ordeal the applicant filed the present O.A.

3. Notice

was

issued

to

the

respondents.

The

respondents have filed counter reply and the applicant has

filed rejoinder.

4. The Tribunal after relying on the judgment of Capt. M.

Paul Antony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. reported

5

Item No. 60

O.A. No. 2839/2021

AIR 1995 SC 416 directed the respondents to proceed with

the departmental proceedings. The learned counsel for the

applicant submits that the present case is squarely covered

by the aforementioned judgment where the Apex Court has

held that simultaneous proceedings can proceed but in those

cases where the Court/Tribunal shall decide on a case to

case basis.

5. In the present case, after perusal of the charges as

mentioned in page 21 and as per the charge sheet attached

at page 35, it is seen that the almost identical charges are

leveled

against

the

applicant

in

the

Departmental

Proceedings.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently