Disciplinary Authority Cannot Impose Harsher Punishment After Sentence Reduction On Appeal In Criminal Case: Delhi High Court
A Delhi Police constable, partially acquitted on appeal, was removed from service despite earlier departmental punishment.
Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Madhu Jain, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that once a disciplinary authority has imposed a punishment on the basis of a criminal conviction, it cannot reopen the same incident to impose a harsher penalty merely because the sentence was reduced in appeal.
The petition challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, which had dismissed his application against his removal from service.
A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain noted, "It is not disputed that the first enquiry proceeding against the petitioner was also on the basis of his conviction in the above criminal case. Having considered the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner in the criminal trial, where the petitioner had been found guilty of the offences under Sections 307 and 326 of the IPC, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of forfeiture of four years of approved service permanently, entailing proportionate reduction in his pay. Though the said order was made subject to the outcome of the Criminal Appeal, which was then pending against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, it could only mean that in case the petitioner succeeds in the appeal, the punishment imposed on the petitioner would be revisited."
The Court held, "In the present case, upon conviction of the petitioner under Sections 307 and 326 of the IPC, the Disciplinary Authority exercised such discretion and visited the petitioner with the penalty of forfeiture of four years of approved service permanently, entailing proportionate reduction in his pay. For the same conviction, the Disciplinary Authority could not revisit its decision only because, in the appeal, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 307 of the IPC was not sustained while his conviction under Section 326 of the IPC was sustained by the High Court. If anything, the nature and gravity of the case against the petitioner was diluted and not aggravated by the decision in the appeal and the sentence of the petitioner had been reduced. Rule 11 of the Delhi Police Rules does not allow the re opening of the case in such a case where the earlier punishment was also on the basis of the conviction of the delinquent employee."
Advocates M. Bhardwaj appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Syed Abdul Haseeb appeared for the Respondents.
Background
The petitioner had faced criminal prosecution under Sections 307 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Following registration of the FIR, he was placed under suspension and was later reinstated in service. He was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment along with payment of fines.
Aggrieved by the conviction, the petitioner filed a criminal appeal. Meanwhile, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him under the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, on the ground that he had been convicted in a criminal case while serving as a police official. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of forfeiture of four years of approved service permanently, entailing a proportionate reduction in pay. This punishment was made subject to the outcome of the criminal appeal.
In the criminal appeal, the Delhi High Court partly allowed the petitioner’s plea. While his conviction under Section 307 of the IPC was set aside, his conviction under Section 326 of the IPC was upheld, and the sentence was reduced from five years to one year.
Despite this, the disciplinary authority invoked Rule 11(1) of the Delhi Police Rules and directed the removal of the petitioner from service with effect from the date of the appellate judgment. His departmental appeal was also dismissed on the ground of limitation. The Central Administrative Tribunal subsequently upheld the action of the authorities.
Finding
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court observed that the earlier departmental punishment was also based on the petitioner’s conviction and that the disciplinary authority had already exercised its discretion under Rule 11 of the Delhi Police Rules. The Court held that the conditional nature of the 2013 punishment order could only mean that the punishment would be revisited if the conviction was set aside or if the sentence was enhanced, and not that a harsher punishment could be imposed when the appeal resulted in partial relief and reduction of sentence.
The Bench noted that the nature and gravity of the offence had been diluted and not aggravated by the appellate judgment. It held that Rule 11 of the Delhi Police Rules does not permit reopening of the case in such circumstances and that imposing the penalty of removal amounted to penalising the petitioner twice for the same cause.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal, the disciplinary authority, and the appellate authority, and directed that the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits to be released within eight weeks.
Cause Title: Ashok Kumar v. Commissioner Of Police & Ors., [2026:DHC:75-DB]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates M. Bhardwaj, Priyanka M. Bhardwaj, Praveen Kumar Kaushik
Respondents: Advocates Syed Abdul Haseeb, Tanveer Zaki and Amir Kha