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.

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

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

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.