The High Court rejected arguments for interfering with the Central Administrative Tribunal's order quashing departmental proceedings against discharged police officers. The court declined interference as the election to do so was cognizable after a long delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~28
versus
PRATAP SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anil Singal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
% 05.03.2025
1. A joint departmental enquiry was initiated against the respondent and certain other officials of the petitioner, based on F.I.R. No. 33/08 registered against them under Section 7/13 (1)(a)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 384/120B/34 of the IPC at PS AC Branch, GNCT of Delhi.
2. The accused, including the respondent, were arrested and released on bail. On 16 September 2017, the disciplinary proceedings culminated in an order of penalty against the respondent passed by the disciplinary authority. The respondent appealed against the said order. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 22 January
W.P.(C) 2762/2025
Page 1 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 6.03.2025 17:44:06
3. Prior thereto, by orders dated 27 May 2017 and 6 July 2017, the respondents were discharged in the criminal cases instituted against them by the learned Special Judge, PC Act on the ground that there was no valid sanction obtained prior to institution of the said cases.
4. Thereafter, the Joint Commissioner of Police, on 7 November 2017, passed an order in which it was opined as under:
“Therefore, no further departmental action is warranted against HC (Exe.) Pratap Singh No. 265/ND (now 5191/DAP) (PIS No. 28823865), Ct. Bhageerath Meena No. 1175/ND (now 8960/DAP) (PIS No. 28030046) and Ct. Kishore Kumar No. 1434/ND (now 8845/DAP) (PIS No. 28900927). However, their names are hereby removed from the list of police personnel involved in criminal cases for the above said case in this battalion.”
5. In these circumstances, the respondents jointly approached the Central Administrative Tribunal1 by way of OA 2187/2018, praying that, as they have been discharged in the criminal cases instituted against them, the disciplinary proceedings could not continue.
6. The Tribunal has, by judgment dated 12 August 2024, allowed the respondents’ OA. Aggrieved thereby, the Delhi Police is before us by means of the present writ petition.
1 “Tribunal” hereinafter
W.P.(C) 2762/2025
Page 2 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 6.03.2025 17:44:06
7. We have heard Mr. Shashank Dixit, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Singal, learned Counsel for the respondents.
8. Mr. Dixit submits that the present case falls within Rule 12(a)2 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 19803 as the orders passed by the learned Special Judge reveal that the criminal charge against the respondent had failed on technical grounds on nonobtaining of appropriate sanction.
9. We might have examined this aspect. However, we find that the order of discharge was passed by the learned Special Judge as far back as on 27 May 2017. Nearly eight years have elapsed since then.
10. Mr. Singal, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that no charge sheet has thereafter been filed against them before the learned Special Judge.
11. Keeping in view this fact, and the fact that, on 7 November 2017, the Joint Commissioner of Police had also decided not to continue the proceedings against the respondent, we do not deem this to be a fit case for interference with the impugned judgment of the
2 12. Action following judicial acquittal. – When a police officer has been tried and acquitted by a criminal court, he shall not be punished departmentally on the same charge or on a different charge upon the evidence cited in the criminal case, whether actually led or not unless – (a) the criminal charge has failed on technical grounds
3 “DPPAR” hereinafter
W.P.(C) 2762/2025 Page 3 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 6.03.2025 17:44:06
Tribunal in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine .
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
MARCH 5, 2025/ ar
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
W.P.(C) 2762/2025
Page 4 of 4
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 6.03.2025 17:44:06
Commissioner of Police & Ors.
Pratap Singh & Ors.
C. Hari Shankar
Ajay Dipaul
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
