The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has quashed the dismissal of four UT police personnel facing CBI corruption cases, observing that the seriousness of the allegations or registration of a criminal case alone cannot be a reason to remove a government employee without holding a departmental inquiry.

The tribunal said the authorities had failed to produce sufficient material to show that holding departmental inquiries against the personnel was not reasonably practicable. It observed that even the arrest of an employee in a criminal case does not automatically do away with the requirement of a departmental inquiry.

The four personnel had been dismissed from service by invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, which permits dismissal without a departmental inquiry in exceptional circumstances where conducting such an inquiry is not reasonably practicable.

One of the petitioners, assistant sub-inspector (ASI) Akhtar Hussain, had joined UT police as a constable in 1988 and was promoted as sub-inspector in 2021. In October 2023, he was booked by the CBI for allegedly demanding and accepting a ₹5 lakh bribe from one Ram Mehar Sharma in lieu of not taking coercive action against his brother in a GST fraud case. He was booked under Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 (public servant taking undue advantage) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

CAT said a mere possibility or general apprehension that a police officer could influence witnesses or tamper with evidence was not sufficient to invoke the exceptional provision. The authority must have relevant and objective material to support such a conclusion.

No evidence of witness intimidation

In the present case, the tribunal found no specific and contemporaneous material showing that any witness had been threatened or intimidated, had refused to participate in departmental proceedings, or that any other concrete circumstance had made an inquiry impracticable.

The tribunal also rejected the respondents’ reliance on the subsequent chargesheet and framing of charges in the CBI case, observing that the legality of the decision to dispense with the inquiry had to be assessed on the basis of the circumstances and material available when the dismissal order was passed. Later developments could not retrospectively cure an otherwise invalid exercise of the exceptional power.

Not expressing guilt or innocence of personnel, clarifies CAT

CAT clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the criminal cases or the guilt or innocence of the personnel. It left it open to the authorities to proceed against them in accordance with law and applicable service rules.

The competent authority has been directed to decide on their reinstatement, continuity of service, consequential benefits and treatment of the intervening period within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.