09 August 1996
Supreme Court
Download

RAMESH CHANDER Vs DELHI ADMINISTRATION .

Bench: B.P.JEEVAN REDDY,K.S.PARIPOORNAN
Case number: C.A. No.-010382-010382 / 1996
Diary number: 11852 / 1994
Advocates: ASHOK K. MAHAJAN Vs


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: RAMESH CHANDER & ORS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DELHI ADMINISTRATION & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/08/1996

BENCH: B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, K.S.PARIPOORNAN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T PARIPOORNAN. J.      Special leave granted. We heard Counsel. 2.   There are  three appellants  in this appeal. They are - (1) Sri  Ramesh Chander, Ex. Head Constable No.10152 D.A.P., (2) Shri  Devinder Singh, Constable No.10744, D.A.P. and (3) Shri Dharambir  Singh, Constable  No.10724, D.A.P., attached to Delhi  Police, 9th  Battalion,  D.A.P..  The  respondents herein  are   -(1)  the  Delhi  Administration,  Delhi,  (2) Commissioner of  Police, Police Headquarters, New Delhi, (3) Additional Commissioner  cf Police, Police Headquarters, New Delhi and  (4)  Deputy  Commissioner  of  Police,  9th  Bn., D.A.P., Delhi. 3.   The  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 matter. 4.   The relevants  facts which  have  given  rise  to  this appeal are as follows: All 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.

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

The 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. 5.   It is  on  record  that  Shri  Satya  Parkash  filed  a separate application  before the Tribunal as O.A No.1637/90. By its  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.      "In  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.           The 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.                          Sd/-                      (DEEPAK MISHRA)            DY. COMMISSIONER OF  POLICE;            WEST DISTRICT  :  NEW DELHI.      SIP/08      No.227-325/P(W), dated  New  Delhi,      the 17.1.94."                     (emphasis supplied) 6.   In  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

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

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. that 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. 7. On  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. It so  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  foundation. Moreover, 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

4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

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. However, 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 to costs.