Mr. Shashank Dixit, CGSC with Mr. Rohit Gupta, Adv v. RAVINDER

Judgment

2. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 1212/2025 and CM APPL. 5931/2025 (Stay)

3. The respondent was appointed as Sub Inspector (Exe) in the Delhi Police on 10 June 2019. He remained under probation for two years.

FIR 616/2020 was lodged against the respondent on 23 August 2020 at PS HTM Hisar Haryana alleging commission of offences Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 1212/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:12.03.2025 19:43:29 under Sections 420 / 467 / 468 / 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601. Trial, consequent to the registration of the FIR, is presently ongoing before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, CJM, Hisar.

5. In connection with the aforesaid FIR, the respondent was arrested on 23 August 2020. He was enlarged on bail by order dated 16 February 2021.

6. In the interregnum the respondent was placed under suspension by order dated 16 September 2020. This was followed by the following Show Cause Notice dated 23 November 2020, issued to him, under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service), Rules 19652: “SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR TERMINATION Consequent upon receipt of a report from SHO / Maya Puri regarding arrest of PSI (Exe) Ravinder Kumar, No. D/6376, (PIS No.16190243) (Under Training) under dated 23.08.2020 u/s. 420/467/468/471 IPC PS HTM Hissar, Haryana on 23.08.2020. For the sake of natural justice a preliminary enquiry was ordered and entrusted to ACP/PG Cell, West District against PSI (Exe) Ravinder Kumar, No. D/8378. During enquiry, it has been established that complainant Smt. Babli Drawing Teacher G.S.S.S., Jahajpul Hissar, Haryana R/o. C-6, Ramtal Colony near Jat College, Hissar, Haryana reported that on 23.08.2020 she was detailed for invigilator duty at Govt. Higher Sec. School, Jahajpul, Hissar, Haryana during PTI Exam, at about 01.45 PM one Mandeep Singh came her class room on the pretext of QR Code scanning of Sunila’s Roll No.60230018. He was caught by the complainant (Babli) while he was handling over answer key to Sunita. As such for his illegal activity he was handed over to police with (1) Roll No., Slip of Roll No. 60230018 (2) Forged I card (3) Answer key. Accordingly, a case FIR No.616/2020 dated 23.08.2020 u/s. 420/467/468/471 IP PS HTM, Hissar, Haryana was Signature Not Verified 1 “IPC”, hereinafter 2 “the TS Rules”, hereinafter W.P.(C) 1212/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:12.03.2025 19:43:29 got registered and arrested the accused person and investigation was taken up. The disclosure statement of accused was recorded and later on 120B IPC was invoked in the instant case. On the basis of disclosure statement of Mandeep Kumar, other co-accused persons PSI Ravinder and 17 others were also arrested. During investigation accused PSI (Exe) Ravinder Kumar, No. D/6376 had disclosed his involvement that he was a part of crime and played active role to finalize the deal and solved the paper to prepare the answer key for the applicants. The investigation of the case has sheet u/s. been completed and 420/467/468/471/120B IPC has been filed in the Hon’ble Court. The case is pending trial in the court of Ms. Varsha Jain, CJM, Hissar, Haryana. Accused (Exe). Ravinder No. D/6376 is running in Judicial Custody at District Jail, Hissar, Haryana. report as charge The above facts revealed that on 23 August 2020 you PSI (Exe) Ravinder Kumar, No. D/6376 left the police station without permission of competent authority and you did not bring the facts about your movement in the notice of SHO/ Maya Puri or other senior officers. For the above misconduct you PSI (Exe) Ravinder Kumar, No. D/6376 was placed under suspension vide this office order No.5908-40/HAP (P-1)/West, dated 16 September 2020. You, PSI (Exe) Ravinder Kumar, No. D/6376 enlisted in Delhi Police on 10.06.2019 and you are undergoing your basis training and you have not completed your probation period of 2 years. As per Rule (1) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, “The services of a temporary government servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the government servant.” The above act, of you PSI (Exe) Ravinder Kumar, No. D/6376 establishes that you have no respect of law and you can go to any extent for earning money by unfair means without any temptation and provocation and which amounts to gross misconduct and unbecoming of a police officer of a disciplined force. The involvement of you PSI (Exe.) Ravinder Kumar, No. D/6376 in such a shameful, criminal/corrupt activity eroded the faith of common people in police force and continuous in the force is likely to came future Irreparable loss to the functioning and Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 1212/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:12.03.2025 19:43:29 credibility of the Delhi Police. Not only being a Govt. servant he did not inform for his Involvement in Cri. Case and his arrest to the department which he violate the CCS (Conduct) Rules and Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules-1980. Therefore, you PSI (Exe.) Ravinder Kumar, No. D/6376 (PIS No. 16190243) is hereby called upon to show cause as to why your services should not be terminated under Rules 5(1) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and your suspension period should not be decided period not spent on duty for all Intents & purposes. The reply to the show cause notice should reach the undersigned within 15 days from the receipt of this notice, failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in your defence and the matter will be decided ex-parte, on its merits. (Deepak Purohit) IPS Dy. Commissioner of Police West District, New Delhi. No. 23238-39/Extt.(1)/West dated New Delhi the 23/11/2020”

7. Thus, the case against the respondent was based on the complaint of one Babli, a Drawing Teacher in the GSSS Jahajpul, Hisar. The allegation against the respondent was that he had solved the paper set for the PTI Examination, conducted at the Government Higher Senior Secondary School, Jahajpul, and that the answer key thus prepared was handed over by one Manmeet Singh to a candidate Sunita at about 1.45 pm when the examination was in progress. It was further alleged that the respondent had not informed the petitioner of his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case and his arrest therein. These acts, it was alleged, infracted the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980.

8. The respondent submitted a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 23 November 2020 on 4 January 2021 through the Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 1212/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:12.03.2025 19:43:29 Superintendent of the jail where he was lodged. He denied all allegations against him.

9. By order dated 29 January 2021, the Deputy Commissioner of Police3 terminated the respondent under Rule 5(1) of the TS Rules with immediate effect and further directed that the respondent’s period of suspension from 16 September 2020 till the date of termination be treated as not spent on duty for all purposes. While the earlier paragraph of the said orders are a mere recital of the facts leading to issuance of the show cause notice, and the allegations therein, the concluding two paragraphs of the order merit reproduction: “The above act on the part of PSI (Exe) Ravinder Kumar. No. D/6376 establishes that he has no respect of law and he can go to any extent for earning money by unfair means without any temptation and provocation which amounts to gross misconduct and unbecoming of a police officer of a disciplined force like Delhi Police The involvement of PSI (Exe.) Ravinder Kumar. No. D16376 in such a shameful, criminal/corrupt activity eroded the faith of common people in police force and continuous in the force is likely to came future irreparable loss to the functioning and credibility of the Delhi Police, Not only being a Govt servant he did not inform about his Involvement in Cri Case and his arrest to the department which he violated the CCS (Conduct) Rules and Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules-1980”

10. The respondent appealed against the aforesaid order to the Appellate Authority on 26 February 2021. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority in order dated 17 June 2021, which read thus : “The appeal dated 29.02.2021 filed by you, against order no. 1395- 1495/Estt(I)/West dt. 29/01/2021 has been examined by Jt. C. P. /WR, Delhi and the same has been rejected as you Ex. PSI (Exe.) Signature Not Verified 3 “DCP”, hereinafter W.P.(C) 1212/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:12.03.2025 19:43:29 Ravinder Kumar, No. D/6376 were terminated from service under Rule (5) (1) of CCS (Temporary) Services Rules, 1965, which is in Rule 5 of Delhi Police(Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. Hence, no appeal lie under Rule 23 (1) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal)Rules, 1980.” authorized punishment

11. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal4 by way of OA 1529/2022, praying that the show cause notice dated 23 January 2021, termination order dated 17 June 2021 and appellate order dated 7 July 2021, be quashed and set aside and that he be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits including seniority, promotion and pay and allowances.

12. The petitioner’s OA stands allowed by the learned Tribunal by order dated 8 October 2024, on the ground that the termination of the respondent was stigmatic and had, therefore, to be preceded by a formal inquiry. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and directed reinstatement of the respondent with all consequential benefits.

13. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition.

14. The issue in controversy stands concluded by a judgment of this Court in GNCTD v Virender5. In that case, too, the services of the respondent were terminated under Rule 5 of the TS Rules, by the following order: Signature Not Verified 4 “the Tribunal”, hereinafter 5 MANU/DE/1467/2024 W.P.(C) 1212/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:12.03.2025 19:43:29 “In pursuance of the Proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, I, Sudhir Yadav, Director General, Prisons, hereby terminate forthwith the services of Sh. Virender, Warder- 1685 on having found unsatisfactory and not conducive to the job requirements and direct that he shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his service or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.”

15. The Coordinate Bench has examined the legal position in detail. Paras 36 to 47 of the judgment in Virender read thus: “36. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. v. Constable Avtar Singh6, has in paragraph 11 held as under: "11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are in total agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the State of Punjab that the controversy involved in this case is no longer res integra. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent had drawn our attention to a two-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab7. The Court held that once there is stigma, the principle is well settled, an opportunity has to be given before passing any order. Even where an order of discharge looks innocuous, but on a close scrutiny, by looking behind the curtain if any material exists of misconduct and which is the foundation of passing of the order of discharge, or such could be reasonably inferred, then it leaves no room for doubt that any consequential order, even of discharge, would be construed as stigmatic. The decision in Sukhwinder Singh8 was given by a three-Judge Bench and in view of that decision in 2005, there is no scope for this Court to take a different view. We are squarely bound by the said decision." (emphasis supplied) In the case of State of Punjab and Ors. v. Sukhwinder

37. Singh, the Supreme Court has in paragraph 20, has held as under: "20. In the present case neither any formal departmental