Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain allowed the police department’s writ petition in part by modifying the tribunal’s direction for automatic reinstatement and back benefits. The dispute arose from disciplinary action against a police constable who had been dismissed after departmental proceedings concerning an on-duty firearm discharge that caused a colleague’s death and allegations of cheating and forgery linked to gold biscuits. While the Court agreed that the departmental findings could not sustain the punishment on the material recorded, it held that setting aside dismissal does not, by itself, settle reinstatement or service benefits when a later criminal conviction exists on a different charge. The competent authority was directed to decide reinstatement and benefits within eight weeks, factoring in that conviction.

Also Read: State Police Can Investigate Corruption Cases Of Central Govt Employees Without CBI Consent; Supreme Court

After the dismissal was set aside in an earlier round of litigation, liberty was granted to the authorities to initiate departmental proceedings. A departmental enquiry was thereafter commenced and culminated in an order of dismissal, which was affirmed in appeal. During this period, the constable was acquitted in two criminal cases, while the criminal proceedings relating to the firing incident continued.

The Tribunal, in the subsequent application, quashed the departmental enquiry, the orders of dismissal, and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits. This order was assailed before the High Court, primarily on the grounds that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the pendency and later outcome of the criminal proceedings and that the departmental findings were supported by evidence and permissible under the applicable service rules.

The Court reiterated the settled limits of judicial review in disciplinary matters, recording that “the Court should generally refrain from re-appreciating the evidence presented in the departmental proceedings” and that interference is permissible only where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or violative of settled principles.

With respect to the charge arising from the firing incident, the Court noted that the Tribunal had relied upon testimony forming part of the departmental record. It recorded that “from the departmental record itself, it can be made out that the incident was not an act of delinquency but merely an accident in service, however, unfortunate it may be.” The Court found no infirmity in this conclusion.

Addressing the subsequent criminal conviction, the Court observed that “this conviction, rendered fifteen years after the passing of the Impugned Order cannot automatically vitiate its findings.” It further noted that while the criminal conviction was founded on gross negligence, “the charge in the departmental inquiry does not even attribute negligence, leave alone any misconduct on part of the respondent.”

On the issue of the cheating and forgery charge, the Court recorded that “none of the witnesses identified the respondent” during the departmental enquiry and that the finding of guilt was “based on no evidence.” The Court therefore declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s findings on the merits of the charges.

However, while considering the relief granted, the Court noted that the respondent had undergone conviction and sentence in the criminal case and that earlier tribunal orders had not directed grant of consequential benefits. It observed that “the final direction of the learned Tribunal, directing the reinstatement of the respondent and grant of all consequential benefits, cannot be sustained.”

Also Read: Criminal Probe Into Alleged Forged Will Can Continue Despite Pending Probate: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea To Quash FIR

The Court ordered that “the final direction of the learned Tribunal, directing the reinstatement of the respondent and grant of all consequential benefits, cannot be sustained. The same is modified by directing that the petitioner shall take an informed decision on the reinstatement and the benefits to be granted to the respondent, taking into account his conviction, within a period of eight weeks from the date of this judgment.”

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with “no orders as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, Central Government Standing Counsel

For the Respondents: Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate; Mr. Abhimanyu Baliyan, Advocate

Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Police v. Ex. Constable Arvind Kumar
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:74-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 263/2009
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Madhu Jain