Court Upholds Tribunal's Decision on Departmental Inquiry but Seeks Reassessment of Reinstatement Due to Criminal Conviction
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has directed the competent authority to reconsider the reinstatement and consequential benefits of Ex-Constable Arvind Kumar, in light of his criminal conviction under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The court's decision comes after a detailed examination of the departmental proceedings and the subsequent tribunal order that had reinstated Kumar with full benefits.
Arvind Kumar, who served as a constable with the Delhi Police, was dismissed from service in 1996 following multiple FIRs registered against him for various alleged offenses, including causing death by negligence and acts of cheating and forgery. Despite being acquitted in two of the criminal cases, the departmental inquiry upheld charges against him, leading to his dismissal. However, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) later quashed the dismissal, citing lack of evidence and procedural lapses in the departmental inquiry.
The High Court acknowledged the tribunal's findings, particularly the testimony of a key witness that characterized the incident resulting in the death of Constable Mohd. Rashid as accidental rather than intentional or negligent. The court noted the difference in the nature of charges between the departmental proceedings and the criminal conviction, emphasizing that the departmental charge did not allege any negligence or misconduct.
However, the court recognized the need to evaluate the reinstatement decision post-conviction. The Supreme Court of India had recently convicted Kumar under Section 304A IPC, altering the legal landscape of his employment status. The High Court instructed the competent authority to assess the implications of this conviction on Kumar's reinstatement and benefits.
The judgment underscores the principle that departmental proceedings should align with natural justice and cannot impose penalties without substantive evidence. It also highlights the procedural independence of departmental inquiries from criminal proceedings, except where the nature of charges and evidence overlap significantly.
The High Court's directive mandates a reassessment of Kumar's reinstatement within eight weeks, considering his conviction and its impact on his service record.
Bottom Line:
Departmental proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice and cannot result in punishment based on no evidence. Criminal conviction may affect reinstatement decisions but cannot automatically vitiate tribunal findings if not linked to departmental misconduct.
Statutory provision(s): Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, Section 304A IPC, Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980
Deputy Commissioner of Police v. Ex. Const. Arvind Kumar, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2833940
