RAMESH CHANDER AND ORS. versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 530 · Decided: 09-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAMESH CHANDER AND ORS. 
v. 
DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. 
AUGUST 9, 1996 
B 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Se1vice Law : 
Back wages-Denial of-Central Administrative Tlibunal passed dif-
C ferent order in respect of persons involved in same incident which resulted in 
discliminatio11-Held : the Tribunal acted arbitra1ily and unreasonably in 
denying back wages-Hence, order passed by Tribunal not justified. 
The appellants and one S were involved in the same incident of 
extracting money from a person and proceedings against them were in-
D itiated departmentally and in Criminal Court on identical charges. They 
were dismissed from service and the revision filed by them was also 
dismissed. However, the disciplinary authority, who passed the order and 
the appellate authority, who affirmed it in the case of S, were different . In 
the meanwhile, the alleged victim had also launched a criminal prosecution 
E 
F 
againsf the appellants and S. The appellants and S filed representation 
before the Department for their reinstatement in view of the judgment of 
the Session Court, which ended in "clean aquittal" of all the appellants and 
also S, but it was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellants and S filed applica-
tions before the Central Administrative Tribunal for reinstatement in 
. service with all consequential benefit including back wages. 
In the case of S, the Tribunal quashed the order of the disciplinary 
as well as that of the appellate authority as one based on no evidence. The 
Tribunal did not pass any consequential order in the case of S and the 
Department passed the consequential order reinstating him with all back· 
wages and other consequential benefits. Similarly, in the application filed 
G by the a.ppellants the Tribunal annuled the orders of punishment passed 
against the appellants as based on no evidence, and 110! in accordance with 
law. But the Tribunal declined to award back-wages to the appellants on 
the ground that the application filed before the Tribunal was not amended 
challenging the later order passed by revisional authority. Being aggrieved 
H the appellants preferred the present appeal for setting aside or annuling 
530 
. 
RAMESH CHANDER v. DELHI ADMN. [PAIUPOORNAN,J.] 
531 
the order of the Tribunal to the extent of denial of back-wages on reinstate-
A 
ment. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The reason stated by the Central Administrative Tribunal 
to deuy back-wages to the appdlants is an irrelevant one and rests on very B 
fragile foundation. Moreover, the consequential order passed in the case 
of S was not adverted to by the Tribunal. On facts, when the appellants as 
well as S, were proceeded against both departmentally and by way of 
criminal prosecution on similar charges and all of them have been ac-
<Juitted by the Sessions Court and the Tribunal also held that the punish· C 
ment imposed on all of them is based on "no evidence
11 and not in 
accordance with la\v, in the absence of very relevant and exceptional 
circu1nstances, the cons.equential order should also be of similar import 
in both the cases. If it is not so, it will be arbitrary and unfair. No 
exceptional circumstances are stated by the Tribunal. It must, therefore, 
be held that the Tribunal acted arbitrarily in denying back wages and D 
consec1uential benefits to the appellants. [535-A-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal no. 10382 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.4.94 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1583 of 1989. 
Ms. Mcena Chhiber and Ashok K. Mahajan for the Appellants. 
Ms. K. Aruneshwari and S.N. Terdol her for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PARIPOORNAN, J. Special leave gronted. We heard Counsel. 
E 
F 
There are three appellants in this appeal. They are· (1) Shri Ramesh G 
Chander, Ex. Head Constable No. 10152 D.A.P., (2) Shri Devinder Singh, 
Constable No. 10744, D.A.P. and (3) Shri Dharambir Singh, Constable No. 
10724, D.A.P., attached to Delhi Police, 9th Battalion, D.A.P .. The respon-
dents herein are · (1) the Delhi Administration, Delhi, (2) Commissioner 
of Police, Police Headquarters, New Delhi, (3) Additional Commissioner 
of Police, Police Headquarters, New Delhi and ( 4) Deputy Commissioner H 
532 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4S.C.R. 
A of Police, 9th Bn., D.A.P., Delhi. 
B 
3. The appellants have prayed for setting aside or annulling the order 
of the Central Ad

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.