Delhi High Court Upholds Departmental Action Against Constable in 2013 Riots Case
The Delhi High Court has firmly upheld departmental punishment against a Delhi Police constable who was involved in a 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots case. The court made a clear distinction between criminal proceedings and internal police disciplinary actions. It ruled that the constable's acquittal in the criminal case held no relevance to the departmental proceedings initiated against him.
Background of the Case
Constable Anuj Kumar, posted at Seemapuri police station in Delhi, found himself named as an accused in one of the Muzaffarnagar riots cases. The 2013 riots had resulted in significant violence and loss of life. In June 2014, the senior police superintendent of Muzaffarnagar formally notified the Delhi Police Commissioner about Kumar's involvement. The communication highlighted that a non-bailable warrant had been issued against the constable.
Kumar's response to this notification raised immediate red flags within the police department. He proceeded on unauthorized leave for nearly seventy days shortly after learning about the warrant. This action prompted the Delhi Police to launch a departmental inquiry in July 2014. The inquiry focused not on the criminal allegations themselves, but on Kumar's failure to report his legal troubles to his superiors as required by service regulations.
The Departmental Proceedings and Penalty
The police department conducted a thorough investigation into Kumar's conduct. They found him guilty of what they termed "grave misconduct, negligence, carelessness and dereliction" of duty. The specific charge centered on his deliberate concealment of the criminal case filed against him. In 2016, the department imposed a significant penalty: forfeiture of five years of service permanently, along with a proportionate reduction in pay.
Meanwhile, the criminal case against Kumar followed a different trajectory. The original First Information Report had been filed at Phugana police station under serious sections of the Indian Penal Code. These included charges related to outrage of religious feelings, dacoity, and mischief by fire. The complainant, Sulaiman from Lishad village, had alleged that Kumar and others forcibly entered his home, looted valuables, and set the house on fire.
Developments in the Criminal Case
The criminal case took an unexpected turn in early 2014. The complainant submitted an affidavit to police authorities stating that he had "falsely named" Kumar and others in the FIR. He attributed this to tension and pressure during the riots period and expressed his desire not to pursue the matter further. When the case eventually went to trial, all three prosecution witnesses turned hostile. Consequently, a trial court in Muzaffarnagar acquitted Kumar and other accused persons in May 2019.
Following his acquittal, Kumar approached the police department with a request to set aside the departmental punishment. He argued that since he had been cleared of criminal charges, the disciplinary action should be revoked. The department rejected his request, maintaining that the two proceedings addressed separate issues.
Legal Challenges and Tribunal Ruling
Unsatisfied with the department's decision, Kumar challenged the penalty order before the Central Administrative Tribunal in 2021. The CAT ruled in his favor, overturning the departmental punishment. The Tribunal went further by imposing costs of ten thousand rupees each on the Deputy Commissioner of Police and Assistant Commissioner of Police who had handled the disciplinary proceedings. It directed that these amounts be recovered from their salaries and deposited into the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.
The CAT's order contained strong language criticizing the department's actions. It stated 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." The Tribunal added that it had "never come across such a case where a bad and blind observation was made by the disciplinary authority."
High Court's Decisive Intervention
The Delhi Police promptly challenged the CAT's order before the Delhi High Court. They argued that the Tribunal had "exceeded its jurisdiction" in this matter. A division bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain heard the case and delivered a significant judgment in December 2025.
The High Court set aside the CAT's order with clear reasoning. The bench observed that "the Tribunal has completely misdirected itself, inasmuch as the acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case was irrelevant to the departmental proceedings." The court emphasized that the departmental charge against Kumar focused solely on his failure to report the registration of the FIR to police authorities in a timely manner.
The judges provided important legal clarification on this matter. They noted that the principle of double jeopardy had no application in these proceedings. The departmental action was based on a charge entirely different from what Kumar had faced in criminal court. The High Court accepted the police department's argument that Kumar himself had admitted knowing about the FIR registration on June 8, 2014, yet failed to inform his superiors as required.
Constable's Defense and Court's Response
During the High Court proceedings, Kumar presented his defense. He argued that with the complainant withdrawing allegations and admitting to false implication, he held a "bona fide belief" that the matter had been disposed of. He contended that there was no requirement to inform the department about what he considered a false case that had already been resolved.
The High Court examined this argument but found it insufficient. The bench noted that Kumar's admission about knowing of the FIR registration in June 2014 created an obligation to report it to his department. His failure to do so, regardless of later developments in the criminal case, constituted a violation of service rules. The court thus upheld the departmental penalty, reinforcing the importance of transparency and accountability within police forces.
This judgment establishes an important precedent regarding the separation between criminal proceedings and departmental disciplinary actions. It clarifies that acquittal in criminal court does not automatically invalidate departmental penalties based on separate charges of misconduct. The ruling emphasizes that police personnel must adhere strictly to service regulations regarding disclosure of legal matters, regardless of the eventual outcome of those cases.
