DAYA NAND Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, Constables in Delhi Police, were dismissed from service on a charge of gang raping a woman by order dated 19.7.1993 after dispensing with the enquiry under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution. FIR No .289/93 was also registered against them under Sections 366/376/506. One of the petitioners (petitioner No.2) challenged his dismissal under Article 311(2)(b) in OA No.1729/94 but failed on 15.3.1995. Meanwhile, both petitioners were discharged by Trial Magistrate vide order dated 4.10.1996 as no prima facie incriminating evidence was found against them. Encouraged by this, they filed OA No.568/97 and sought quashment of their dismissal order dated 19.7.1993 and their reinstatement in service on the strength of their order of discharge in the criminal case, invoking Rule 12 of Delhi Police (P & A) Rules, 1980 in the process.

(2.) Tribunal dismissed their OA by impugned order dated 21.9.2000, holding that Rule 12 had no application in the matter. They have now filed this petition insisting that R-12 was attracted to their case. Their case in nut shell is that once charge against them in criminal case had failed and they had stood discharged, they could not be punished in a departmental action in terms of R-12. Their counsel Mr.Shyam Babu even went to the extent of wanting us to equate "discharge" with "acquittal" to bring their case within this Rule. He also relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court in Captain M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Another (JT 1999(2) SC 456) and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Syed Qamar Ali (1976 SLR 228) to suggest that a delinquent employee could not be punished on the same charge on which he was discharged in a criminal case.

(3.) Therefore, all that remained to be examined was whether order of discharge earned by petitioners in a criminal prosecution was covered by provisions of Rule 12 and whether it could nullify and upset a prior dismissal order passed under Article 311(2)(b). The answer would wholly converge on interpretation of terms of Rule 12 which is reproduced hereunder-