Ravindra Nagar vs GNCTD

Headnote AI-drafted · Editorially reviewed

The applicant, a Constable in the Delhi Police appointed on 25.05.2008, was dismissed from service vide order dated 31.08.2020 while in judicial custody, by invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, without holding a departmental enquiry. The dismissal followed his arrest in connection with FIR No. 314/20 dated 26.06.2020 under Sections 307 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act at P.S. Seemapuri. His statutory appeal was rejected vide order dated 13.12.2023.

The applicant challenged both orders on the grounds that the reasons recorded for dispensing with the departmental enquiry were vague, based on suspicion and surmise, and legally untenable. He contended that a preliminary enquiry was conducted behind his back to establish guilt, that the Disciplinary Authority presumed the allegations to be proved, and that Article 311(2)(b) was being misused as a shortcut mechanism. He further argued that the Appellate Authority's order was non-speaking, mechanical, and failed to consider his legal submissions and judicial precedents cited by him.

The Original Application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, seeking quashing of the dismissal order and the appellate order, reinstatement with all consequential benefits including seniority, promotion, pay and allowances.

Catchwords: Dismissal from service Article 311(2)(b) Constitution of India departmental enquiry dispensed with not reasonably practicable preliminary enquiry Delhi Police Constable presumption of guilt non-speaking order Appellate Authority Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 Section 19 FIR judicial custody suspension