Gaurav Kumar vs Commissioner Of Delhi Police & Anr.

O R D E R

“(a)

Quash order dated 30.12.2022 (Annexure A-1) and order dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure A 2)

(c)

Direct the respondent to reinstate the applicant in service with full back wages with interest, continuity in service, seniority promotion and all other consequential benefits.”

“On 24/12/2022, two persons, namely Sh. Salaudeen Kathat S/o Sh. Mainudeen R/o Vill. Nanana, PS Shendhana, District Pali, Rajasthan and Sh. Saikh Khadar Başhi S/o Sh. Saikh Shahinsha Vall R/o 1-2-158, Shashahab Street, Karim Nagar, Telangana came to the IGI Airport Police Station. Sh.

Salaudeen Kathat stated that on the intervening night of 19-20/12/2022, he arrived at IGI Airport at 02.55 Hrs from Muscat via flight No. AI-973 and he was carrying 600 grams of Gold with him which was handed over to him by one Sh. Sikander in Muscat, with the direction to deliver it to a person who would further deliver the same to the residence of one Ramswaroop in Rajasthan. After clearing the immigration, he crossed the Green channel (Custom Clearance) without being checked. After coming out from the Terminal he took a taxi and when the taxi reached the T-3 exit Ramp, a police gypsy in which 02 police personnel were sitting stopped the taxi and forced him to sit inside the gypsy. After that, they took him outside the Police Station and forcefully took him to an isolated place near the Airport in a private car and extorted the 600 gm. of gold that he was carrying. He came to know the names of alleged.police personnel as HC Robin Singh and HC Gaurav Kumar, both posted in IGI Airport police station.

Similarly Sh. Saikh Khadar Bashi S/o Saikh Shahinsha Vali R/o 1-2-158, Shashahab Street Karim Nagar, Telangana stated that on same night i.e. intervening night of 19-20/12/2022, he arrived at Terminal 3 of IGI airport Delhi at 04.45 Hrs from Dubai via flight No. AI-996. He was carrying 400 grm of gold with him which was handed over to him by one Sh. Anil, native of Rajasthan who was working with him in Dubai. He was supposed to hand over the gold to one Sh. Mohd. Arif s/o Sh. Ajeez Khan R/o Village Saharaniabat, Distt. Nagaur, Rajasthan in Mahipalpur, New Delhi. He took a taxi from T-3 on arrival in which two other passengers were also sitting. Meanwhile, one police person came and sat in his taxi. When the taxi reached the T-3 exit ramp one police gypsy in which 01 police person was sitting, stopped the taxi and both the police person took him out from the taxi and drove the vehicle to an isolated place near the Airport and forcibly took away the 400 gm gold which he was carrying. He came to know the names of alleged police personnel as HC Robin Singh and HC Gaurav Kumar, both posted in IGI Airport police station.

Statements of both the complainants were recorded. Subsequently, as per their statements a case vide FIR No. 586/22 Dated 24/12/2022 U/s 384/427/34 IPC was registered against HC Robin Singh No. 377/A, PIS no. 28070591 and HC Gaurav Kumar, No. 299/A, PIS No. 28092272 and investigation was taken up. During Investigation both the Head Constables were arrested on 25.12.2022. Section 365/392 IPC and Section 7/13.1(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act have been added during investigation.

Being involved in the above case, HC Robin Singh No. 377/A) and HC Gaurav Kumar, No. 299/A were placed under suspension vide order No. 4305-4405/HAP(P-1)/IGIA dated 25.12.2022 w.e.f. 25.12.2022 i.e. the date of their arrest in the case.

In this regard, a preliminary enquiry has been conducted by ACP/PG Cell/IGIA vide order No. 4513/HAP/IGIA (P-I) dated 26.12.2022. In his report ACP/PG/IGI Airport has concluded that it has been prima facially established that the alleged police personnel i.e. HC Robin Singh No. 377/A and HC Gaurav Kumar, No. 299/A had committed a grave offence amounting to a serious misconduct and the same has to be dealt with stringent departmental action against them.

Policing demands utmost level of integrity, probity and upright public Image from a Police officer. A spotless conduct is of paramount importance for all police officers. In the given case the allegations in the FIR are of serious nature.

The act committed by HC Robin Singh No. 377/A and HC Gaurav Kumar, No. 299/A has not only tarnished the image and brought disgrace to the organization but also demoralized other police personnel. The misconduct committed by the above said defaulters has put the entire police force to shame. Such misconduct cannot be tolerated in any disciplined organization like Delhi Police whose basic duty is to protect the life and property of the citizens of the society.

The facts and the circumstances of the case are so serious that it will not be reasonably practicable to conduct a regular departmental enquiry against the defaulters as there is a reasonable belief that the witnesses may not come forward to depose against them owing to their influential positions. It also calls for great courage to depose against the desperate persons and the task becomes more acute and difficult where the police personnel could use their job to influence the statements of the witnesses. It is highly probable that during the entire process of departmental proceedings the complainant and witnesses would be put under constant fear or threat to their person and property from the defaulters. Under these circumstances I am personally satisfied that conducting a regular DE against the defaulters is not practicably possible.

After having committed above gravest misconduct, if the above named police officials are allowed to continue in the police force, it would be detrimental to public interest and further tarnish the image of police force in society. Therefore, in order to send a clear message to such undesirable elements in the police force and to maintain discipline as well as to prevent recurrence of such incidents, it has become absolutely necessary to dismiss HC Robin Singh No. 377/A (PIS No. 28070591) and HC Gaurav Kumar, No. 299/A (PIS No. 28092272) from service as they are completely unfit to continue further in police service.

Whereas, in the back drop of the position explained in the foregoing paragraphs of this order, it is crystal clear that HC Robin Singh No. 377/A(PIS No. 28070591) and HC Gaurav Kumar, No. 299/A (PIS No. 28092272) are persons with criminal bent of mind. Hence, under these set of compelling circumstances, I am constrained to take action under the provision of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India in this case for the sake of justice. On the basis of gravity of case, it can be safely concluded that both the Head Constables have become a liability to the police department and needs to be dealt with heavy hand. Moreover, their further retention in the department after their involvement/arrest in the above mentioned case is absolutely undesirable in the public interest, safety and security.

Keeping in view of the fact of the case and overall implication of such a misconduct within a disciplined force and sensitivity of the matter, I, Ravi Kumar Singh, IPS, Dy. Commissioner of Police, IGI Airport, Delhi hereby DISMISS HC Robin Singh No. 377/A (PIS No. 28070591) and HC Gaurav Kumar, No. 299/A (PIS No. 28092272) from Delhi Police under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India with immediate effect.

They are not in possession of Govt. accommodation. They will deposit all the Govt. belongings i.e. Identity Card, Appointment Card, CGHS Cards, General Store and Clothing store articles etc. to the concerned authority at once.

Descriptive particulars of HC Gaurav Kumar, No. 299/A

S. No.	Particulars
1.	Name
2.	Rank & Belt No.
3.	PIS No.
4.	Father's name
5.	Caste
6.	Date of Birth
7.	Date of appointment 07.04.2009
8.	Height
9.	Identification Mark
10.	Permanent Address
11.	Present Address

Descriptive particulars of HC Robin Singh, No. 377/A

S. No.	Particulars
1.	Name
2.	Rank & Belt No.
3.	PIS No.
4.	Father's name
5.	Caste
6.	Date of Birth
7.	Date of appointment 11.06.2007
8.	Height
9.	Identification Mark
10.	Permanent Address
11.	Present Address

Their suspension period from 25.12.2022 to the date of issue of this order is hereby decided as period not spent on duty for all intents and purposes.”

“8.

A catena of cases of the Orders/Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and of this Tribunal on the issue as involved in the present case were also considered by the Division Bench (consisting one of us) while deciding the case of Ct. Sumit Sharma (supra).

9.

Having regard to the above, we have carefully perused the impugned order(s), we find that nothing has been recorded in the impugned order(s) or shown to us that the applicant had ever threatened or harassed any of the witness (es) and/or the prospective witness (es). From the impugned orders, it is also evident that neither any effort was made by them to conduct an enquiry, nor there is any evidence that despite their best efforts, the respondents would not have been able to produce the witness (es) to lead evidence against the applicant. Further 18 OA No.1019/2023 nothing is brought on record that witness (es) has/have been threatened by the applicant or they were too scared of the applicant to come forward in the regular enquiry proceedings. It is also found that the disciplinary authority while passing the impugned order has very casually come to the conclusion that it would not be possible to conduct the departmental enquiry against the applicant, as no reason at all has been recorded in this regard and the applicant is guilty of committing grave misconduct and was involved in the aforesaid offences.

10.

Having regard to the above, we are of the considered view that impugned orders passed by the respondents are not only in violation of the settled law but also of their own circular dated 11.9.2007. The reasons given by the respondents for dispensing with the enquiry are not in consonance with the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts and followed by this Tribunal in a catena of cases, including in one referred to hereinabove.

11.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the instant OA is squarely covered by the common 19 OA No.1019/2023 Order/Judgment dated 10.2.2022 in Ct. Sumit Sharma (supra) and a batch of cases. Therefore, the present OA deserves to be partly allowed and hence, the same is partly allowed with the following directions:- (i) Orders dated 03.10.2022 (Annexure A/1) and dated 10.3.2023 (Annexure A/2) passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities respectively are set aside; (ii) The applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and law on the subject; (iii) The respondents shall implement the aforesaid directions within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of this order; and (iv) However, the respondents shall be at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant in accordance with the law.

12.

However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.”

“14.

In the light of the aforesaid, we have no hesitation in concurring with the Tribunal that the petitioners' decision to dispense with the enquiry was wholly unsustainable. The petitioners appear to have proceeded on an erroneous presumption that merely because a criminal case has been registered against the respondent, he was to be treated as guilty of the misconduct. No doubt, the respondent is a police officer, whose misconduct can never be condoned, but this would not imply that the principles of natural justice should be given a complete go by. As noted hereinabove, the petitioners have not given any valid reason for dispensing with the enquiry except for repeatedly stating that the respondent is guilty of serious misconduct. This course of action, in our view, is completely impermissible.

15.

Before we conclude, we may also consider the decision in Ajit Kumar Nag (supra) relied upon by the petitioners. We, however, find that instead of forwarding the case of the petitioners, the said decision supports the case of the respondent. It would, therefore, be apposite to refer to paragraph no.44 of the said decision, which reads as under:-

"44.

We are aware of the normal rule that a person must have a fair trial and a fair appeal and he cannot be asked to be satisfied with an unfair trial and a fair appeal. We are also conscious of the general principle that pre- decisional hearing is better and should always be preferred to post-decisional hearing. We are further aware that it has been stated that apart from Laws of Men, Laws of God also observe the rule of audi alteram partem. It has been stated that the first hearing in human history was given in the Garden of Eden. God did not pass sentence upon Adam and Even before giving an opportunity to show cause as to why they had eaten the forbidden fruit. (See R. v. University of Cambridge [(1723) 1 Str 557:93 ER 698].) But we are also aware that the principles of natural justice are not rigid or immutable and hence they cannot be imprisoned in a straitjacket. They must yield to and change with exigencies of situations. They must be confined within their limits and cannot be allowed to run wild. It has been stated:" „To do a great right‟ after all, it is permissible sometimes „to do a little wrong‟." [Per Mukharji, C. J. in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India [(1990) 1 SCC 613] (Bhopal Gas Disaster), SCC p. 705, para 124.] While interpreting legal provisions, a court of law cannot be unmindful of the hard realities of life. In our opinion, the approach of the Court in dealing with such cases should be pragmatic rather than pedantic, realistic rather than doctrinaire, functional rather than formal and practical rather than "precedential"."

16.

We are, therefore, of the considered view that the petitioners have not only ignored the decisions of the Apex Court laying down the parameters for applicability of Article 311(2)(b) of Constitution of India, but have also ignored their own circulars dated 21.12.1993 and 11.09.2007. We, therefore, find no infirmity with the impugned order.

17.

The writ petition being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed with all pending applications.”

“20.

In the present case, as apparent from the reasons recorded by the respondents in the impugned order, it is apparent that the respondents have arrived at the conclusion for dispensing with the regular inquiry due to the involvement of the applicants in a grave and serious case. The respondents have jumped to the conclusion that on account of serious allegations, the applicants have become ineligible to be continued in police force. There is no finding that the 24 applicants and/or anybody on their behalf have at any point of time even attempted to influence or coerce any of the witness. Even there is no finding that the applicants in the captioned OAs who are very junior officers under the respondents were in a position to influence the witnesses who are generally senior officials working in the Government of India and particularly in CBI. It is also nowhere recorded by the respondents as to how if not only preliminary inquiry was found possible, but also the criminal trial is possible in the said case FIR with the support of more than nineteen witnesses and at no point of time the prosecution has even felt that those witnesses are not likely to turn up and regular inquiry was not possible in the matter. It is undisputed that regular inquiry is a Rule whereas dispensing with the same is only an exception. Though the respondents have recorded that if regular inquiry is initiated, the same is liable to take a long time, however, no reason has been given for the same and it is apparent that such reasoning and finding is based on surmises and conjectures.

21.

In view of the aforesaid, we find that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the OAs are allowed with the following order(s) :- (i) impugned orders dated 10.08.2022 and 25.01.2023 are set aside. The applicants shall be reinstated in service forthwith. (ii) the applicants shall be entitled for all consequential benefits in accordance with relevant rules and instructions on the subject. (iii) the aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) the respondents shall be at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicants if they are so advised, of course in accordance with rules and instructions on the subject. 22. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.”

“9.

A bare perusal of the aforesaid reasons contained in the dismissal order makes it clear that the primary reason for the petitioners not holding any enquiry against the respondent was that due to seriousness of the offence alleged to have been committed by him it would not be reasonably practicable to conduct a regular departmental enquiry. It also emerges that on the basis of the allegations levelled against the respondent in the FIR coupled with the findings of the preliminary enquiry, the petitioners presumed that the respondent was guilty of a serious offence and therefore deserve to be dismissed at the earliest. This in our considered view, as has been rightly held by the learned Tribunal, could not be treated as a ground to reach a conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry against the respondent. The petitioners have sought to dispense with the enquiry in such a casual manner and that too only on the basis of a perceived notion that the respondent being a police personnel, an enquiry against him was likely to be difficult on account of his influence. This course of action is clearly violative of Article 311(2) (b) of the Constitution of India.

10.

We have also considered the decision in Dushyant Kumar (Supra) and find that in the said case, this Court had rejected a similar challenge by the petitioners to the Tribunal's quashing of a dismissal order passed after dispensing with the enquiry. In fact, this Court after considering the circulars dated 21.12.1993 and 11.09.2007 issued by the petitioners themselves, observed that despite there being a requirement to record cogent reasons to dispense with the enquiry, the petitioners were passing cryptic orders dispensing with the enquiry in the most mechanical manner.

11.

No doubt, the respondent is a police personnel and any misconduct on his part is liable to be dealt with appropriately. This, however, does not imply that the petitioners could, on the basis of the gravity of the charges levelled against him, with an enquiry on absolutely vague grounds. As noted hereinabove, the petitioners have given no reason whatsoever in the impugned order for dispensing with the inquiry. The impugned order of dismissal proceeds on the basis that the respondent's guilt had already been proved in the preliminary enquiry. Furthermore, it is not as if the respondent has been let off without any departmental action being taken against him, as the learned Tribunal has already granted time to the petitioners to initiate departmental proceedings against him as per law.

12.

For the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition being meritless is dismissed along with all applications.

13.

Before we conclude, we are constrained to observe that in a large number of petitions filed by the Commissioner of Police which are coming up before this Court, we are finding termination orders are being passed by the petitioners by dispensing with departmental enquiries in a most mechanical manner without recording any valid reasons. We, therefore, direct that a copy of this order be placed before the Commissioner, Delhi Police to ensure that in future, enquiries are not dispensed with without assigning justifiable reasons.”

“10.

From a perusal of the aforesaid, we find that the petitioners have proceeded to dispense with the enquiry against the respondent only because of the grave nature of allegations levelled against him and have simply observed that since the respondent had lowered the image of the police department and goodwill of a uniformed organisation, an exemplary punishment of dismissal ought to be imposed upon him so as to send a clear message to undesirable persons and to prevent reoccurrence of such crimes. In the light of the aforesaid, we find absolutely no reason to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal that the dismissal order passed by the petitioners did not contain any justifiable reason whatsoever for dispensing with the enquiry. What clearly emerges is that the petitioners have proceeded on the premise that such police officers, who are charged with serious misconduct, should be immediately dismissed from service. This approach, in our view to dispense with an enquiry, would not meet the parameters laid down under Article 311(2) (b) of the Constitution of India.

11.

At the cost of repetition, we may reiterate that merely because the respondent was a police personnel, would not entitle the petitioners to give a complete go-bye to the requirement of holding a departmental enquiry against him without recording any justifiable reasons as to why departmental enquiry could not be held against him.

12.

For the aforesaid reasons, we find no infirmity with the impugned order. The writ petition, being meritless, is along with accompanying application, dismissed.”

“9.

A bare perusal of the aforesaid reasons contained in the dismissal order makes it clear that the primary reason for the petitioners not holding any enquiry against the respondent was their presumption that the respondent would threaten or intimidate the complainant and other witnesses. The petitioners were further of the view that a prolonged enquiry would cause more trauma to the complainant. It is also evident from the dismissal order that the petitioners had, on the basis of the evidence led in the preliminary enquiry, already made up their mind that the respondent was guilty of serious misconduct and had lowered the image of the police force in the eyes of the public.

10.

In our considered view, even though the charges against the respondent are very serious and the interest of the complainant deserves to be protected, it does not imply that the principles of natural justice as also the provisions of section 11 of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 should be given a complete go by on the basis of mere presumptions. Only because the respondent is a police personnel, would in our view, not be a ground either to presume that the witnesses will not come forward to depose against him in a regular enquiry or to hold him guilty without conducting the statutorily prescribed departmental enquiry and that too in a matter like the present where the complainant and the witnesses are also police personnel. In fact, what emerges is that on the basis of the report of the preliminary enquiry itself, the petitioners presumed that the respondent was guilty of serious misconduct and therefore deserved to be dismissed at the earliest. This in our considered view, as has been rightly held by the learned Tribunal, could not be treated as a ground to reach a conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry against the respondent. This course of action, in our considered opinion, was clearly violative of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India.

11.

No doubt, the respondent is a police personnel and any misconduct on his part is liable to be dealt with appropriately. This, however, does not imply that the petitioners could, on the basis of the gravity of the charges levelled against him, dispense with the requirement of an enquiry on absolutely vague grounds. As noted hereinabove, the petitioners have given no reason whatsoever in the impugned order for dispensing with the inquiry. The impugned order of dismissal proceeds on the basis that the respondent’s guilt had already been proved in the preliminary enquiry and had also been admitted by him. We therefore have no hesitation in agreeing with the learned Tribunal that the petitioners have dispensed with the enquiry only on the basis of a perceived notion that the respondent being a police personnel, would threaten the witnesses and holding of an enquiry would cause trauma to the complainant. Furthermore, we find that it is not as if the respondent has been let off without any departmental action being taken against him. As is evident from the impugned order, the learned Tribunal, while setting aside the dismissal order, has granted time to the petitioners to initiate departmental proceedings against him as per law.

12.

For the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition being meritless is dismissed along with all accompanying applications.

“In pursuance of judgment dated 06.02.2024 passed by the Principal Bench of Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) & Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A), Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No.14/2018 titled Sant Ram Vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors. and judgment dated 23.04.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Ms. Justice Rekha Palli & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee, High Court Delhi in W.P.(C) No.5562/2024, CAV 181/2024, CM Appl. 22929/2024 – Stay, CM Appl. 22930/2024 - Ex./LLOD titled Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs. Sant Ram as well as opinion of Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld. Addl. Solicitor General of India that “this is not a fit case for filing of SLP", the order of the disciplinary authority passed vide No.1833-1900/HAP/PTC (P-II) dated 01.08.2017 vide which Const. (Exe.) Sant Ram, No.324PTC (PIS No. 28060573) was dismissed from the Delhi Police force under Article311(2) (b) of Constitution of India deciding his suspension period as period not spent on duty and the order passed by the Appellate Authority vide No. 106-66/SO/Jt. C.P/Trg, dated 03.11.2017 rejecting his appeal, are set aside. Accordingly, Const. (Exe.) Sant Ram, No. 324/PTC (PIS No.28060573) is hereby re-instated in service from dismissal with immediate effect without prejudice to the further departmental action to be taken against him in accordance with the law.

He is deemed to be under suspension from the date of his dismissal as he had already been placed under suspension vide D.D.No.29-A/PTC/JK dated 22.07.2017 and formal issued vide order No.1738-70/HAP/PTC (DA-II) dated 26.07.2017. His dismissal/suspension period will be decided later on.

Let Const. (Exe.) Sant Ram, No.324/PTC (PIS No. 28060573) be informed accordingly.

“No. 174/C/HC/24 5110-60 DA-III/Court Cell/PHQ dated 13.05.2024

To The Deputy Commissioner of Police, All District including Units, New Delhi.

Sub: W.P. (C) No. 1258/2023 & CM Appl. No. 4759/2023 in the matter of Commissioner of Police, Delhi vs. Manjeet.

Memo

Enclosed please find here with a copy of letter No. 10264/W/DHC/ Writs/D-9/2023 dated 26.04.2024 received from the Registrar General, Delhi High Court along with copy of the order dated 22.04.2024 wherein the Hon’ble has observed that “ in large number of petitions filed by the Commissioner of Police which are coming up before the this Court, we are finding termination orders are being passed b y the petitioners by dispensing with departmental enquiries in a most mechanical manner without recording any valid reasons. We, therefore, direct that a copy of this order be placed before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to ensure that in future, enquiries are not dispensed with without assigning justifiable reasons.

It is, therefore, requested that the aforementioned directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi shall be taken into consideration before passing termination orders by dispensing with the departmental enquiries in future.

This issues with the approval of Commissioner of Police, Delhi.

(Hareesh H.P) Deputy Commissioner of Police Legal Division/ PHQ, Delhi”

“The respondents, after considering the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tulsiram Patel (supra) and the Order(s)/Judgment(s) passed by this Tribunal have issued another circular dated 11.09.2007 (Annexure A/13 of the rejoinder filed in OA 467/2020). In the said circular, they have emphasized that the disciplinary authority should pass a speaking order(s) based and supported by material/facts on record for dispensing with prior inquiry and before passing such order(s), the disciplinary authority should be satisfied that it is not practicable to hold an inquiry in view of threat, inducement, intimidation, affiliation with criminals etc. and the disciplinary authority has no option but to resort to Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India. The said circular dated 11.09.2007 reads as under:-

“CIRCULAR No. 5545-645/P. Cell/Vig. Dated 11.09.2007

An analysis has been done by PHQ in 38 cases pertaining to the period between 1.1.2000 to 31.12.05 where action under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India was taken against the defaulters. The analysis shows that out of the 38 cases, the action of the department has been upheld by CAT only in two cases and out of these two cases and only one case action was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and most of these cases have been remanded back in the Department by the Tribunal for initiating departmental inquiry.

Though some cases are still pending in the Hon’ble High Court for decision, in a majority of cases, Disciplinary Authorities have resorted to Article 311 (2) (b) on assumptions and conjectures. No speaking orders were passed based on and supported by material/facts on record for dispensing with prior enquiry. Orders for dismissal were passed arbitrarily violating Article 311 and the principles of natural justice.

Henceforth, it has been decided that whenever any Disciplinary Authority intends to invoke Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India, he must keep in mind the judgment in the case of UOI v. Tulsi Ram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416. Only in cases where Disciplinary Authority is personally satisfied on the basis of material available on file that the case is of such a nature that it is not practicable to hold an enquiry in view of threat, inducement, intimidation, affiliation with criminals etc. and keeping in view of specific circumstances of the case it is not possible that PWs will depose against the defaulter and disciplinary authority has no option but to resort to Article 311 (2) (b) should such an action be taken. Prior to such an order, a PE has to be conducted and it is essential to bring on record all such facts. It has also been decided that before passing on order under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India, Disciplinary Authority has to take prior concurrence of Spl. CP/Admn.

This has the approval of C.P., Delhi.

Sd/-(S.N. SRIVASTAVA) JT. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE: HDQRS,: DELHI””

“20.

Accordingly, finding no error in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, the present petition is dismissed.

21.

Before parting with this matter, we hereby direct the Commission of Police Delhi to personally look into such matters and take proper decision so that Courts/Tribunals are not burdened with a case where departmental inquiries can be initiated. We hereby make it clear that if such like petitions are filed in future wherein dismissal or suspension orders are passed without holding any enquiry without any plausible reasoning, certainly heavy cost will be imposed and that too, will be recovered from the Officer, who takes such type of unwarranted decision.

22.

A copy of this order be transmitted to the Commissioner of Delhi Police for information and compliance.”

“23.

This historical experience teaches us an essential lesson: the mere existence of law does not guarantee justice. Procedural codes, however well-structured, can fail to serve the people if they are not grounded in principles of JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and the integrity of the Nation.

24.

Therefore, in the contemporary Indian judicial landscape, the pursuit of justice demands a holistic appreciation of the entire judicial framework rather than mere adherence to codified law and the law propounded through judgments. Structural judicial reform is urgently needed- reform that prioritizes justice not only in theory but in alignment with the rule of law, ensuring that the law and government policies serve WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, not the other way around.

25.

Caste in India is not merely a system of social stratification - it isa deeply embedded psychological and legal phenomenon that influences identity, behaviour, and access to rights. Caste has been institutionalized over centuries through religious texts, social customs, and cultural practices. The caste-based notion of superiority, especially among historically privileged castes, persists in the collective consciousness despite constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity. It is a human-made construct- not a genetically evolved condition, like the evolution of humans from homo sapiens to present-day human beings; It’s not a divinely ordained system.

26.

The Constitution of India enshrines the principle of equality and explicitly prohibits caste-based discrimination through several key provisions. Article 14 guarantees "equality before the law" and "equal protection of the laws" to all individuals. Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Yet, caste-based discrimination continues to exist in society, and the Courts have recognized this in various judgments, particularly in matters involving atrocity laws and reservations.

27.

Many individuals from privileged caste(s) experience cognitive dissonance when confronted with their privilege. While they may intellectually accept constitutional equality, they often deny structural discrimination, attributing marginalized groups. This denial acts as a psychological defence mechanism to preserve caste identity and caste-based privileges without overt guilt. This fosters implicit bias and a persistent sense of social superiority, which resists rational legal intervention.

31.

The resurgence of caste identifiers in public and digital spaces is not the beginning of a cultural phenomenon- it is a coded assertion of social power that contradicts India's constitutional values. In the northern part of India- in states like Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, and parts of Madhya Pradesh and Bihar-individuals commonly mark their cars, bikes, and sometimes homes with caste identifiers. Vehicles adorned with caste emblems, slogans or even warnings.

34.

The collective political will, bureaucratic setup, and law enforcement agencies are oblivious to the aforementioned social trend. The reasons are best known to them; either they have accepted it as the future of the new India, or their cognitive behaviour and social psyche have been shaped by caste narcissism.

35.

The police and other law enforcement agencies are not immune to these societal biases. They often reflect, reproduce, and sometimes intensify caste-based prejudices. It becomes necessary to deal with the cognitive behaviour of law enforcement officials in India when influenced by caste-ridden thought, combining insights from the conduct infused by social psychology, and behavioural patterns reflected in contemporary cases. This is evident from discrimination and segregation in the education and justice departments that remain rampant across India, driving inequality in education, life opportunities, and in justice delivery system.

37.

Even though Article 15 of the Indian Constitution protects individual Indians from discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex and place of birth. Yet, nearly 75 years after the Indian Constitution came into force, the critical and influential institutions of State are still influenced by a malignant system that often adopts immoral caste, sex and religion-based preferences under the guise of so-called “independence” and “transparency” ……..

38.

The psyche behind an inflated ego is a myth, and the constitutional instrumentalities need to bust it. It is not just regressive- it is resistant to the idea of a progressive, transformed, developed, modern, and unified India. India's future lies in social integrity and participative democracy. Confronting this psyche requires more than regulation; it demands social re-education, moral awakening, and deconstruction of caste as a symbol of worth. The real pride of a citizen must lie not in caste, but in character- and not in legacy, but in equality and fraternity. Equality means equal opportunities for all, and fraternity means a collective sense of brotherhood. It is not a subject of good and impressive literature, but rather one to be embodied in practice through body, action, and behavior. It's about engaging your whole self.

39.

To address the psychological dimensions of system-based privileges and behavior sentiments, legal reform must go beyond punitive measures, and the rule of law shall be given prominence while dealing with biases, and to eliminate such biases and prejudices, the sensitization of the judiciary and police through anti-bias training programmes and introducing new curricular reform to challenge casteist and sexiest narratives in schools and colleges, and in bureaucratic set-ups. Strengthening social justice jurisprudence with attention to lived experience, rather than just legal definitions, and implementing legal literacy campaigns to dismantle internalized superiority may serve a useful purpose in establishing a caste-less and gender-neutral society.

45.

The law alone cannot change hearts and minds. The absence of sustained government programmes to eliminate discrimination may not fulfil its Constitution obligation towards a casteless society. India must move beyond punishment and economic schemes to create proactive programmes of education, awareness, and social reform to achieve constitutional morality and the vision of an equal and inclusive society in participative democracy. The affirmative programmes and economic schemes have their own worth but cannot substitute the aforesaid pro-active programmes.

46.

The investigative impartiality and enforcement neutrality must be consciously cultivated, especially in a society where caste is pervasive. Writing or declaring the caste of an accused- without legal relevance-amounts to identity profiling, not objective investigation. It reinforces prejudice, corrupts public opinion, contaminates judicial thinking, violates fundamental rights, and undermines constitutional morality.

49.

The sole purpose of the observation made herein above is merely an attempt to invoke constitutional morality and awaken a sense of compassion and justice in the conscience of those occupying the highest constitutional offices. Constitutional authorities must never forget that the dignity of the Nation does not emanate from lineage or caste affinity, but from adherence to constitutional morality and the collective effort of building a strong national character. Pride in ancestry or social identity cannot be a substitute for the values of equality, justice, and fraternity enshrined in the Constitution. True honour for one’s office, and true service to the people, lies in upholding these principles with humility and devotion. Reverence for the Constitution, rather than for lineage, is the highest form of patriotism and the truest expression of national service. Such conduct, if any, by the constitutional authority undermines the constitutional morality.”

“1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that in view of judgment dated 14.08.2024 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) 11276/2024 titled as The Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs. OM Prakash & anr., petitioners may be allowed to withdraw the present petition.

2.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

3.

Petitioners are directed to examine all such petitions pending before this Court which are falling under similar circumstances and to file application to withdraw the said petitions, if they consider it necessary.”