CAT quashes dismissal of 4 Chandigarh cops in CBI corruption cases

The Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal has quashed orders issued by SSP Chandigarh dismissing ASI Akhtar Hussain and three other cops from service with immediate effect by invoking Clause (b) of the second proviso of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

ASI Akhtar Hussain and three other cops challenged the orders of dismissal through advocate Rohit Seth.

The Tribunal in its order said that all four Original Applications were taken up together for disposal, as a common question of law and facts was involved in all these cases. The cops were dismissed from service on different dates after the CBI registered cases against them for alleged corruption.

Akhtar Hussain said that he joined the Police Department as a Constable on May 9, 1988, and was promoted as Sub-Inspector in 2021. On December 6, 2023, an FIR was registered against him under Section 120-B of the IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and he was arrested by CBI ACB, Chandigarh, after duty hours.

Thereafter, vide order dated October 10, 2023, the department dismissed him from service with immediate effect by invoking Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution, allegedly without adhering to the parameters prescribed by orders of the Department of Personnel and Training.

He filed an appeal in 2024, contending that the competent authority was required to satisfy itself and record reasons before dispensing with the departmental inquiry under Article 311(2)(b), and that his dismissal was arbitrary and contrary to law.

The applicant submitted that the action was illegal, arbitrary, unsupported by evidence, contrary to the prescribed procedure and amounted to an improper invocation of the exceptional power under Article 311(2)(b), causing grave prejudice and severe financial hardship to the applicant and his family.

However, counsel for the respondents said that the orders were passed in accordance with law, after following the prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice.

After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal said the respondents had failed to demonstrate that, on October 10, 2023, circumstances existed which rendered a departmental inquiry not reasonably practicable.

The reasons recorded by the disciplinary authority substantially proceeded on the seriousness of the allegations and a generalised apprehension regarding witnesses and evidence, without sufficient objective material demonstrating an actual impediment to holding the inquiry.

The Tribunal allowed the applications and quashed and set aside the order dated October 10, 2023, appellate order dated October 19, 2024, and revisional order dated February 18, 2025.

The Tribunal said that the order dismissing the applicant from service, having been passed by dispensing with the departmental inquiry without satisfying the requirements of Article 311(2)(b), cannot be sustained in law.

The Tribunal said that the respondents shall, however, remain at liberty to proceed against the applicant in accordance with the applicable service rules and law, if so advised, without prejudice to the pending criminal proceedings and subject to all legal requirements.

The question of reinstatement, continuity of service, consequential benefits and treatment of the intervening period shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules and law. In this regard, the competent authority shall take an appropriate decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.