CAT slams senior Delhi Police officers for dismissing two cops on suspicions

The Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) recently set aside orders against two Delhi Police officials, who were previously removed from service on suspicions that they were involved in a robbery case, without a regular departmental inquiry..The tribunal found the dismissals to be in violation of the settled law."The applicant(s) shall be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject," the tribunal added, while granting them relief. It went on to impose a cost of ₹50,000 each on the Joint Commissioner of Police (Eastern Range) and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East District and ordered the Commissioner of Police to “record inaction” on their part in their Annual Performance Assessment Report for the year 2025-26."The cost shall be paid in the Prime Minister's Relief Funds within ... eight weeks," the tribunal added in the April 16 ruling.However, the tribunal allowed the Delhi Police to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings against the two officials in accordance with the law. .Akash, a Constable, and Mangtu, a Head Constable, were terminated following their alleged involvement in a robbery case registered in July 2023. They were accused of robbing ₹28,50,000 from the complainant in the robbery case.The Delhi Police had invoked Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution to dismiss the two cops, without conducting a formal departmental inquiry, citing fears that witnesses might not testify against them due to their influence..However, the CAT bench, presided over by Judicial Member RN Singh and Administrative Member Rajinder Kashyap, ruled that the dismissal orders were based on assumptions, suspicion, and surmises rather than concrete evidence. “It is apparent that the Disciplinary Authority has assumed as if the allegations made in criminal case (FIR) already stand proved and thus with this presumptions, the present impugned order has been issued. Once the order of Disciplinary Authority is based on assumption as if the allegations made against the applicant already stand proved that too on the content of FIR, the same act is enough to vitiate the order of Disciplinary Authority as the same being bad in law and being based on assumptions, suspicion and surmises.”.The Disciplinary Authority did not mention the reasonable grounds even when a preliminary enquiry was ordered against the accused cops, and the Appellate Authority also rejected their appeal in a mechanical manner, the tribunal found“Merely on presumptions that the allegation against the applicant is presumed to be proved and the witness might not have come forward to depose against the applicant … the Appellate Authority is simply assuming that the allegations against the applicant stands proved and this justification is good enough to invoke the Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India and dismiss the Applicant,” it said..The tribunal concluded that both the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority did not make any efforts to conduct departmental enquiry. Rather, it found that they simply resorted to invoking clause (2)(b) of Article 311(dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed by government) of the Constitution of India to impose the penalty of dismissal.“This could be construed as strong bias of respondents towards the applicant and their disdain approach to uphold Rule of Law,” the tribunal observed. The tribunal also opined that it was wrong to assume that since the officials are of the rank of Head Constable and Constable, they would influence witnesses. “The applicant is Head Constable/Constable in Delhi Police. Both are lower rank among the subordinate officer, thus, it is absolutely wrong to record that applicant is in any position to influence or threaten any witness.” .The tribunal added that the present case reflected an absolute misuse of the power vested in the Disciplinary Authority under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India and was, hence, bad in law.“Earlier also while deciding other matters we have pointed out that a serious course correction is needed in the respondent Department while handling such cases and it is for their betterment if they take effective steps in that direction. We need not further ponder upon this point and leave it here,” the Bench added.Advocate Ajesh Luthra represented the petitioners (police officers who were dismissed). Advocate Priyanka Swami represented Delhi Police. .[Read Order]