OA 4398/2010. Case: 1. Dushyant Kumar S/o Gopeshwer Dayal, 2. Parvinder Kumar S/o Chattar Singh Vs 1. Commissioner of Police, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi, 2. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ist Bn/DAP, New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | OA 4398/2010 |
| Judges | G. George Paracken (Judicial Member) & Dr. Veena Chhotray (Accountant Member) |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 161; Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 34, 149, 323, 364A, 452 |
| Judgement Date | July 12, 2011 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
G. George Paracken (Judicial Member), (Principal Bench New Delhi)
-
The applicants are aggrieved by the Annexure A-1 order dated 24.09.2010 by which a departmental inquiry was ordered against them on the same charge on which they were tried and acquitted by the criminal court.
-
Brief facts of the case: An FIR No. 113/2008 under Sections 364-A/452/323/149/34 IPC was registered against the applicants on 01.06.2008 in Police Station Shivaji Colony, Rohtak, Haryana. Consequently, they were placed under suspension w.e.f. 01.06.2008. After trial in the criminal case filed on the basis of the aforesaid FIR, they were acquitted by Annexure A-2 judgment dated 09.12.2009. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak held that there was not an iota of evidence against the accused in order to prove their guilt and the prosecution failed to prove the charge levelled against them. Thereafter, the applicants were reinstated in service w.e.f. 02.03.2010. However, the respondents vide the impugned order dated 24.09.2010 ordered to conduct a regular departmental inquiry against them on the ground that in terms of Rule 12 (b) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 (for short "1980 Rules"), they are to be proceeded departmentally because the prosecution failed to prove the case against them beyond shadow of reasonable doubt as the prosecution witnesses have been won over and they retracted from their original statements.
-
The applicants challenged the aforesaid order of the respondents on the ground that Rule 12 (b) of the 1980 Rules is not applicable in their case. They have also refuted the contention of the respondents in the impugned order that the prosecution witnesses have been won over to attract the provision of the aforesaid Rules.
-
In this regard, the applicants have relied upon the order of a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. 2225/2006 - HC Jag Saran Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., decided on 22.08.2007. In the said case, the respondents contention was that the material witnesses have resiled from their statements and, therefore, the disciplinary inquiry could be initiated.
-
While disposing of the said O.A., the Tribunal considered the earlier decision of this Tribunal in OA 1296/2003 decided on 14.01.2004 wherein similar order dated 31.12.2001 has been quashed by which the disciplinary authority has reopened the case. While considering Rule 12 of the 1980 Rules, this Tribunal held that when a police...
To continue reading
Request your trial