The Delhi High Court upheld departmental punishment against a Delhi police constable who was named as an accused in a 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots case, despite his discharge in the criminal case owing to hostile witnesses.
As departmental action was taken against the constable for concealing the case against him, the Delhi HC held that “acquittal…in the criminal case was irrelevant to the departmental proceedings”.
Soon after that constable Kumar proceeded on an unauthorised leave for nearly 70 days and the Delhi police initiated a departmental inquiry against him in July 2014. The reason for the department’s inquiry was not the criminal case, but the fact that Kumar never informed the department about the case, as is mandated under service rules.
Finding him guilty of “grave misconduct, negligence, carelessness and dereliction” in duty for concealing the criminal case that he was facing, the department in 2016 punished Kumar with forfeiture of five years’ service permanently with proportionate dock in pay.
In 2019, Kumar was acquitted in the criminal case after three prosecution witnesses turned hostile, and he requested the department to set aside the punishment. The request was rejected.
In 2021, Kumar challenged the department’s order in CAT, which ruled in his favour and overturned the penalty. The Tribunal also imposed costs on the DCP and ACP who conducted the disciplinary proceedings.
Story continues below this ad
The Delhi High Court last month set aside the CAT’s order.
It held that the Tribunal had “completely misdirected itself, inasmuch as the acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case was irrelevant to the departmental proceedings”.
In the 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots, which left at least 65 dead, Kumar, along with others, was named in an FIR at the Phugana police station under IPC Sections 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 395 (dacoity) and 436 (mischief by fire).
The complainant, Sulaiman, a resident of Lishad village, had alleged that on September 7, 2013, Kumar, a constable in the Delhi police, and others barged into his house with illegal arms and swords, looted valuable articles, jewellery and cash and set the house on fire.
Story continues below this ad
However, in January 2014, Sulaiman submitted in an affidavit to the police that he had “falsely named” Kumar and the others in the FIR “due to tension and pressure… and that he did not wish to pursue the matter”.
With the prosecution presenting only three witnesses, all of whom turned hostile, a trial court in Muzaffarnagar on May 27, 2019 acquitted Kumar and others.
According to Kumar, he was “unaware” of the FIR and first came to know of it on June 8, 2014, when he visited his village during a two-day casual leave. This was four days after the police officer from Muzaffarnagar wrote to the Delhi police chief about the NBW against Kumar. Kumar, immediately, proceeded on unauthorised leave.
He said he filed for pre-arrest bail and was granted the same on August 19, 2014, after which he joined duty.
Story continues below this ad
The CAT, in an order in December 2022, reasoned that despite Kumar’s acquittal, “the department was bent upon imposing a penalty of forfeiture of five years approved service permanently, which is highly improper and illegal”. It further observed that it had “never come across such a case where a bad and blind observation was made by the disciplinary authority”. The CAT then imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 each on the concerned DCP and ACP who had dealt with the disciplinary proceedings, and directed the Commissioner of Police to recover the amount from their salary and deposit it to the PM Relief Fund.
The Delhi Police then went to the Delhi HC, challenging CAT’s order. It submitted that “this is a perfect case where (CAT) has exceeded its jurisdiction”.
Setting aside the CAT’s order, a division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain, in an order on December 23, 2025, accepted the police’s argument and noted that the departmental action was based on a charge different from the charge Kumar had faced in the criminal proceedings.
The bench reasoned, “In our view, the…Tribunal has completely misdirected itself, inasmuch as the acquittal of (Kumar) in the criminal case was irrelevant to the departmental proceedings. The charge against (Kumar) and the punishment imposed upon him were based solely on his failure to report the registration of the FIR to the department in time. The principle of double jeopardy had no role to play in these proceedings.”
Story continues below this ad
Kumar had submitted before the high court that with the complainant in the Muzaffarnagar case against him withdrawing the allegations and the complainant admitting that he had falsely reported and implicated the constable’s name, Kumar was “under bona fide belief that the matter had already been disposed of and there was no requirement to inform the department about a false case that had been disposed of already.”
However the Delhi HC ruled that Kumar himself “admitted that he came to know of the registration of the FIR on 08.06.2014, but failed to inform the department. The charge, therefore, stood proved against him”.
