Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 15th October, 2004 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1125/2004 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal has quashed the impugned orders of dismissal of service issued by the respondent pursuant to a departmental proceedings with a further direction to reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits. The Tribunal, while rendering the aforesaid judgment and order, has mainly proceeded on two counts. The learned Tribunal after looking into the provisions of Rule 15(2) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, which read as under:

15(2). In cases in which a preliminary inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence by a police officer of subordinate rank in his official relations with the public, departmental inquiry shall be ordered after obtaining prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police concerned as to whether a criminal case should be registered and investigated or a departmental inquiry should be held.

held that there was non-compliance and violation of the said Rule.

2. The learned Tribunal held that since in the present case prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police as to whether a criminal case should be registered or a departmental inquiry should be held was not taken, therefore, there is statutory violation in initiating the inquiry as also in conducting the same. The second count on which the learned Tribunal found fault with the orders passed by the petitioner was that there was violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the departmental inquiry. In view of the aforesaid findings rendered on both the counts, the learned Tribunal set aside the impugned order of dismissal from service with a further direction for reinstatement of the respondent in service.

3. Counsel appearing for the Deputy Commissioner of Police has submitted before us that the aforesaid decision rendered by the Tribunal on the interpretation of Rule 15(2) of the Rules cannot and should not be sustained in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Charan Singh, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1007 [LQ/SC/1981/99 ;] ">AIR 1981 SC 1007 [LQ/SC/1981/99 ;] [LQ/SC/1981/99 ;] . He also assailed the findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. Counsel for the respondent, however, has drawn our attention to the decision of this Court in CW No. 1553/2003 titled Commissioner of Police and Others v. R.C. Shekhran disposed of on 30th April, 2005. In the aforesaid Division Bench decision of this Court, Rule 15(2) of the Rules came up for consideration and interpretation.

5. Considering the said provision, it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that the decision taken by the Tribunal that the case papers were required to be placed before the Additional Commissioner of Police in terms of Rule 15(2) of the Rules and that he should have applied his mind to the question whether the respondent should be proceeded against departmentally or should be proceeded against in a criminal Court was legal and valid. It was held that if the intention, which is contained in the said Rule 15(2), is not complied with and proper approval is not obtained then decision of the consequent authority is vitiated.

6. We respectfully agree with and endorse the aforesaid view of the Division Bench of this Court in entirety. The decision relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner in State of Punjab v. Charan Singh (supra) has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case as the rule, which came up for interpretation in the said decision of the Supreme Court, is not similar to the provisions of Rule 15(2) of the Rules. Therefore, in our considered opinion, there was apparent violation of the said rule by the petitioner in initiating proceeding against the respondent inasmuch as admittedly no prior approval was taken as required under Rule 15(2) of the Rules. We uphold the view taken by the learned Tribunal that papers were required to have been placed before the Additional Commissioner of Police in terms of Rule 15(2) of the Rules. Since the same were not placed before the Additional Commissioner of Police as is mandatorily required to be placed and as he did not apply his mind to the question, which was required to be considered by him, we affirm the decision of the learned Tribunal on that count.

7. However, we are required to consider also the other issue which arises for our consideration in this writ petition regarding the question of violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceeding. At this stage, Counsel appearing for the respondent states that the said issue may be kept open to be considered in an appropriate case inasmuch as the respondent would be satisfied if the decision of the Tribunal to the extent of holding that there was violation of the provisions of Rule 15(2) of the Rules in the instant case is upheld by this Court. Accordingly, we uphold the decision of the learned Tribunal in respect of applicability and interpretation of Rule 15(2) of the Rules is concerned with a further direction that the matter shall now be placed before the Additional Commissioner of Police for taking a decision in terms of Rule 15(2) of the Rules. The Additional Commissioner of Police should take the necessary decision within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this order. So far the remaining part of the order of the Tribunal pertaining to violation of the principles of natural justice is concerned, the same stands quashed on the basis of conclusion of the respondent through his Counsel. Even otherwise, when it is held that there is statutory violation in initiation of proceeding against the respondent, the proceeding which was drawn up stands quashed for all purposes. In case, a decision is taken by the petitioners to initiate or hold a departmental inquiry, the same shall be initiated and conducted in accordance with law giving all opportunities to the respondent.

8. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall now reinstate the respondent in service with all consequential benefits. For the period 15.1.2001 to 26.5.2002 the respondent shall be accorded full back wages. It is also held that the intervening period from the date of dismissal i.e. 19.1.2004 till reinstatement shall be treated as period spent on duty for all purposes except back wages. The order for reinstatement of the respondent and payment of back wages shall be issued by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from today.

9. In terms of the aforesaid order, the writ petition stands disposed of.