COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR vs JAGMAL SINGH

$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 20.03.2024
+ W.P.(C) 4201/2024
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR ….. Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel with Mr. N. K. Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat,
ASI Devender Singh, Parvi Officer Traffic.

versus

JAGMAL SINGH ….. Respondent
Through:

CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
CM APPL. 17161/2024 -Ex./LLOD.
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4201/2024 AND CM APPL. 17160/2024 (Stay)
3. The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application (OA) 2209/2022. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal while allowing the original application preferred by the respondent/applicant by setting aside the penalty order dated 11.02.2022 and the appellate order dated 22.12.2022 has directed the petitioners to reinstate him alongwith all consequential benefits. The learned Tribunal has, however, granted liberty to the petitioners to initiate departmental proceedings against the respondent in accordance with law.
4. The brief factual matrix necessary for adjudication of the present petition may be noted at the outset. On 08.02.2022, while the respondent was working as a Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police, a case bearing no. RC DAI-2022-A- 0004/CBI/ACB/Delhi under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against him. It is the petitioners’ case that when the respondent was seen accepting bribe by the CBI officials, he fled from the site. Within three days of the registration of this case against him, the respondent was, without holding any enquiry, dismissed from service vide order dated 11.02.2022. This order dispensing with the departmental enquiry was passed by resort to Article 311(2) (b) of the Constitution of India.
5. Being aggrieved, the respondent, by way of OA No. 2209/2022, approached the learned Tribunal assailing the aforesaid dismissal order which OA, has been allowed vide the impugned order dated 11.10.2023. As noted hereinabove, the learned Tribunal has set aside both the dismissal order and the appellate order passed by the petitioners but has granted liberty to the petitioners to initiate departmental enquiry against him as per law. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present petition.
6. In support of the petition, Mrs. Ahlawat, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned order is wholly perverse as the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the respondent despite being a member of a disciplined force had committed grave and serious misconduct which had undermined the image of the Delhi Police in the eyes of the general public. She, therefore, contends that the petitioners were, in these circumstances, justified in terminating the respondent without holding any departmental enquiry. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal has allowed the original application by simply relying on its earlier decision dated 10.02.2022 in OA No. 1383/2020 titled Ct. Sumit Sharma vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others without appreciating the gravity of the misconduct committed by the respondent. This course of action, she contends, was not permissible and, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside.
7. In order to appreciate the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be necessary to refer to the findings of the learned Tribunal, as contained in para nos. 12 – 14 of the impugned order. The same read as follows:-
“12. Keeping in view the above, we have carefully perused the impugned order(s), we find that nothing has been recorded in the impugned order(s) or shown to us that the applicant had ever threatened or harassed any of the witness(es) and/or the prospective witness(es). From the impugned orders, it is evidently clear that neither any effort was made by them to conduct a preliminary enquiry nor there is any evidence that despite their best efforts, the respondents would not have been able to produce the witness(es) to lead evidence against the applicant. Further nothing is brought on record that witness(es) has/have been threatened by the applicant or they were too scared of the applicant to come forward in the regular enquiry proceedings. Further from list of witnesses produced during the course of hearing, it is apparent that most of the witnesses are officers of the Banks, DDA, Delhi Police and other institutions and from a copy of order sheet dated 1.8.2023 passed in the said case FIR, copy produced, to show that witness(es) are examined before the learned trial court. It is also found that the disciplinary authority while passing the impugned order has very casually come to the conclusion that it would not be possible to conduct the departmental enquiry against the applicant, as no reason at all has been recorded in this regard.
13. Having regard to the above, we are of the view that impugned orders passed by the respondents are not only in violation of the settled law but also of their own circular dated 11.9.2007. The reasons given by the respondents for dispensing with the enquiry are not in consonance with the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts and followed by this Tribunal in a catena of cases, a few of which are referred to hereinabove.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the instant OA is squarely covered by the common Order/Judgment dated 10.2.2022 in Ct. Sumit Sharma (supra) and a batch of cases Therefore, the present OA deserves to be partly allowed and the same is partlyallowed with the following directions:-
(1) Orders dated 11.2.2022 (Annexure A/1) and dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure A/1A) passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities respectively are set aside;
(ii) The applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and law on the subject;
(iii) The respondents shall implement the aforesaid directions within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of this order; and
(iv) However, the respondents shall be at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant in accordance with the law.”
8. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid extracts of the impugned order, we find that the learned Tribunal has, in para nos. 12 and 13 thereof categorically dealt with the reasons furnished by the petitioners in its dismissal order dated 11.02.2022 and found that these reasons were not justified for dispensing with an enquiry against the respondent. In fact, the learned Tribunal has observed that the petitioners had casually come to a conclusion that it would not be possible to conduct the departmental enquiry against the respondent without recording any justifiable reason for the said conclusion. We, therefore, find no merit in the petitioner’s plea that the learned Tribunal has allowed the OA without examining the reasons furnished by the petitioner for dispensing with an enquiry.
9. In fact, at the insistence of Mrs. Ahlawat, learned counsel for the petitioner, we have also perused the dismissal order dated 11.02.2022, the relevant extracts whereof read as under;
“xxx xxx xxx
The conduct of SI (Exe.) Jagmal Singh, No. 1150/D is unbecoming of a police officer. Very serious allegations have been leveled against him. He has violated all norms of ethics and morality, by indulging himself in such a crime. He has lowered the image of Police Department and goodwill of an uniforrmned organization. This is not acceptable from a Police Officer whose prime duty/responsibility is to protect the common citizen and safeguard the spirit of/law. His criminal conduct has also rudely shaken the faith of the citizens in the police force. He has acted in a reprehensible manner which is not at all expected from a member of the disciplined force. Such a conduct is also extremely prejudicial to the personal safety and security of a citizen.

After such a grave criminal misconduct, if the defaulter SI (Exe.) Jagmal Singh, No. 1150/D is allowed to continue in the Police force, it would be detrimental to the public interest and further tarnish the Image of police force in the society. The facts and circumstances of the cases are such that it would not be reasonable practical to conduct a regular departmental enquiry against the defaulter SI (Exe.) Jagmal Singh, No. 1150/D.

The misconduct of the accused SI (Exe.) Jagmal Singh, No. 1150/D is of a grave nature that warrants the exemplary punishment of dismissal in order to send a clear message to such undesirable persons and to prevent the recurrence of such crimes. Assessing totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, I am of the firm opinion that the acts and grave misconduct of the accused SI (Exe.) Jagmal Singh, No.. 1150/D attract the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India and make him completely unfit for police service.”
10. From a perusal of the aforesaid, we find that the petitioners have proceeded to dispense with the enquiry against the respondent only because of the grave nature of allegations levelled against him and have simply observed that since the respondent had lowered the image of the police department and goodwill of a uniformed organisation, an exemplary punishment of dismissal ought to be imposed upon him so as to send a clear message to undesirable persons and to prevent reoccurrence of such crimes. In the light of the aforesaid, we find absolutely no reason to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal that the dismissal order passed by the petitioners did not contain any justifiable reason whatsoever for dispensing with the enquiry. What clearly emerges is that the petitioners have proceeded on the premise that such police officers, who are charged with serious misconduct, should be immediately dismissed from service. This approach, in our view to dispense with an enquiry, would not meet the parameters laid down under Article 311(2) (b) of the Constitution of India.
11. At the cost of repetition, we may reiterate that merely because the respondent was a police personnel, would not entitle the petitioners to give a complete go-bye to the requirement of holding a departmental enquiry against him without recording any justifiable reasons as to why departmental enquiry could not be held against him.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no infirmity with the impugned order. The writ petition, being meritless, is along with accompanying application, dismissed.

(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE

(GIRISH KATHPALIA)
JUDGE
MARCH 20, 2024
p

W.P.(C) 4201/2024 Page 7 of 7