Chander & Ors Vs. Delhi Administration & Ors  INSC
937 (9 August 1996)
Reddy, K.S.Paripoornan Paripoornan. J.
leave granted. We heard Counsel.
There are three appellants in this appeal. They are –
Ramesh Chander, Ex. Head Constable No.10152 D.A.P.,
Devinder Singh, Constable No.10744, D.A.P. and
Dharambir Singh, Constable No.10724, D.A.P., attached to Delhi Police, 9th
respondents herein are –
Delhi Administration, Delhi,
Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, New Delhi,
Additional Commissioner cf Police, Police Headquarters, New Delhi and
Deputy Commissioner of Police, 9th Bn., D.A.P., Delhi.
appellants have prayed for setting aside or annulling the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as
`the Tribunal') dated 22;4.1994 rendered in O.A. No. 1583/89 to the extent of
denial of back-wages on reinstatement. It is stated that the order of dismissal
passed against one Shri Satya Parkash who was also involved in the same
incident, was annulled by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1637/90 by order dated
14.12.1993, and in giving effect to the said order the respondents by order (Annexure
P-I) dated 17.1.1994 reinstated the said Shri Satya Parkash with back-wages and
other consequential benefits. the appellants, who are similarly situate, are
discriminated against. They have not been treated fairly or reasonably in the
relevants facts which have given rise to this appeal are as follows:
the three appellants attached to the Delhi Police, 9th Bn. D.A.P. along with Shri
Satya Parkash, working in West District, were posted in Jeep No. DID-4625 in
the area of Police Station Mangole Puri, New Delhi. It was alleged that on 17.12.1985 at about 12.30 PM. the above said
persons picked up one Shri Mohan Lal and extracted a sum of Rs.365/- giving him
threat of arrest, stating that he was a smack drug addict. In the Departmental
Inquiry, the charges were held proved. On the same allegations, criminal cases
were lodged under section 395 I.P.C. for gross misconduct under section 21 of
the Delhi Police Act against the delinquents.
appellants herein were suspended on 18.12.1985. They were dismissed from
service by order dated 23.9.1988. The appeals filed by them were dismissed by
the Addl. Commissioner of Police on 2.3.1989. The revision filed by them' was
also dismissed on 21.2.1990. In the meanwhile, Shri Mohan Lal, the alleged
victim, had also launched a criminal prosecution against the appellants and Shri
Satya Parkash. The said criminal case ended in "clean acquittal" of
all the appellants and also Shri Satya Parkash. The Sessions Court passed the
judgment dated 25.11.1989. The appellants filed representation before the
Department for their reinstatement in view of the judgment of the Sessions
Court, but it was dismissed. It is thereafter, they filed O.A. No.1583/89
before the Tribunal and prayed for reinstatement in service with all
consequential benefits including back-wages.
is on record that Shri Satya Parkash filed a separate application before the
Tribunal as O.A No.1637/90.
order dated 14.12.1993, the Tribunal quashed the order passed by the
disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. The order so passed
was given effect to by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, West District, New Delhi, in the following terms, as is
evident from Annexure P-1 at page 21 of the paper-book.
pursuance of decision of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi's order dated 14.12.1993 in OA No.
1637/90 Ex. Const. Satya Parkash, No. 652/W vs. UOI and Ors. and PHQ's Memo
No.F.16/297/90/662/CR-I, dated 10.1.94, who was dismissed from the service vide
this office order No.3554-3654/P(W), dated 24.7.89 is hereby re-instated in
service from the date of his dismissal i.e. 24.7.1989. He will draw pay and
allowances admissible to him under rules from the date of dismissal together
with all the consequential benefits subject to the declaration under F.R.53(2)
produced by him on a affidavit attested by a Ist Class Magistrate.
period from the date of issue of this order and to the date of joining his
duties in Delhi Police will be treated as leave of kind due.
(DEEPAK MISHRA) DY. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE;
: NEW DELHI.
No.227-325/P(W), dated New Delhi, the 17.1.94." (emphasis supplied)
the application filed by the appellants, the Tribunal held that the judgment of
the Sessions Court dated 25.11.1989 is one of "clean acquittal" of
the appellants. On facts, it was held that the punishment imposed on the
appellants is vitiated for two reasons -- (i) the punishment violated rule 12
of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, since the appellants
were acquitted by the Criminal Court on the . same charge and they cannot be
punished departmentally as per the said rule; and (ii) no prior permission of
Additional Commissioner of Police was obtained for initiating the Departmental
inquiry against the appellants, as enjoined in rule 15(2) of the Rules. It was
held that this is a case of "no evidence" and the finding arrived by
the Inquiry Officer is unsustainable on facts. It was further held that the
disciplinary authority dealt with the matter rather casually and the appellate
and the revisional authorities "did not apply their mind". The
Tribunal annulled the order of punishment imposed against the appellants, as
one not in accordance with law. However, the Tribunal declined to award
back-wages on the ground.
the application filed before the Tribunal in August 1989 was not amended
challenging the later order passed by the revisional authority dated 21.2.1990.
It should, however, be stated that when the appellants approached the Tribunal,
they had challenged the order of dismissal dated 23.9.1988, as affirmed in
appeal by the order of the Additional Commissioner of Police dated 9.3.1989.
perusal of the relevant records, it is clear that the appellants, three in
number, and Shri Satya Parkash, the applicant in OA No. 1637/90, were involved
in the same incident and proceedings against them were initiated departmentally
and in criminal court on identical charges.
happened, that the disciplinary authority, who passed the order and the appellate
authority, who affirmed it in the case of Shri Satya Parkash, were different.
In Satya Parkash's case the Tribunal by order dated 14.12.1993 quashed the
order of the disciplinary as well as that of the appellate authority as one
based on no evidence. Similarly, in the application filed by the appellants
herein as O.A.No. 1583/89, the Tribunal annulled the orders of punishment
passed against the appellants as based on no evidence, and not in accordance
with law. The Tribunal did not pass any consequential order in the case of Shri
Satya Parkash and the Department passed the consequential order (Annexure P-1
at page 21 of the Paperbook extracted hereinabove), reinstating him with all
back-wages and other consequential benefits. The order of the Tribunal in the
case of Shri Satya Parkash (O.A. No.1637/90) is dated 14.12.1993. The Tribunal
Passed the order against the appellants (O.A.No.1583/89) On merits, identical
conclusion was reached by the Tribunal in both the cases. Normally, the
consequential orders passed cannot be different. But, in the case of the
appellants, the Tribunal has stated a flimsy reason to deny back-wages, namely,
that the appellants did not challenge the later order passed by the revisional
authority dated 21.2.1990. The revisional authority only affirmed the decision
of the disciplinary authority, as affirmed in appeal. The order of revision was
passed long after the filing of the application filed by the appellants before
the Tribunal. In our opinion, the reason stated by the Tribunal to deny
back-wages to the appellants is an irrelevant one and rests on very fragile
the consequential order passed in the case of Shri Satya Parkash (Annexure P-I)
dated 14.12.1993, was not adverted to by the Tribunal. On facts, when the
appellants as well as Shri Satya Parkash, were proceeded against both
departmentally and by way of criminal prosecution on similar charges and all of
them have been acquitted by the Sessions Court and the Tribunal also held that
the punishment imposed on all of them is based on "no evidence and not in
accordance with law, in the absence of very relevant and exceptional
circumstances, the consequential order should also be of similar import in both
the cases. If it is not so, it will be arbitrary and unfair. No exceptional
circumstances are stated by the Tribunal. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal
acted arbitrarily and unreasonably in denying back-wages and consequential
benefits to the appellants. The order of the Tribunal in O.A. No.1583/89 dated
22.4.1994 is hereby set aside or, that aspect.
we direct the respondents to pass appropriate consequential orders in the case
of the appellants herein, bearing in mind the consequential orders passed in
the case of Shri Satya Parkash (Annexure P-I at page 21 of the paper- book).
This shall be so done within a period of three months from today. It is seen
from the records (page 33 of the Paper-book) that all the three appellants have
been reinstated on 17.6.1994. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as