Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 693
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Durga Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5456 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2111 of 2023)
Decided on : 23-04-2025
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Harsh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vb Pandey, Adv. Mr. Avs Kadyan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mrs. Alka Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Mukul Singh, Adv. Mr. Aman Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma Ii, Adv. Mr. Raj Singh Rana, Adv.
The court emphasized that procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings is paramount, and a disagreement note must not pre-judge the outcome, especially after significant delays.
Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 19 - CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Disciplinary proceedings against police officer for alleged negligence during 1984 riots - Inquiry Officer exonerated officer, but Disciplinary Authority disagreed and imposed penalty - High Court allowed writ petition, granting liberty to issue fresh disagreement note - Court found High Court's order justified but noted procedural flaws in the disagreement note, which prejudged the matter. (Paras 8, 10, 18, 34)
(B) Natural Justice - Principles of natural justice require that a charged officer be given a fair opportunity to respond to any disagreement note before punishment is imposed - The disagreement note must not express a pre-judged opinion. (Paras 9, 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a police officer, was charged with negligence during the 1984 riots. An inquiry exonerated him, but the Disciplinary Authority ordered a de novo inquiry and imposed a penalty after issuing a disagreement note. The High Court set aside the punishment but allowed the Disciplinary Authority to issue a fresh note. (Paras 3, 6, 8)
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the disagreement note was flawed as it expressed an opinion of guilt rather than a simple disagreement, violating natural justice principles. The court emphasized the long delay and the appellant's retirement, suggesting that further proceedings would be unjust. (Paras 19, 34)
Issues: The main issues were whether the High Court should have allowed the Disciplinary Authority to issue a fresh disagreement note and the implications of the lengthy delay in proceedings. (Paras 14, 34)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the High Court's decision to set aside the punishment was justified due to procedural flaws in the disagreement note and the significant delay in the disciplinary process, which warranted a final resolution. (Paras 19, 34)
Result: Appeal allowed; order of the High Court granting liberty to issue a fresh disagreement note set aside.
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal impugns the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi1[The High Court] dated 12.09.2022 passed in W.P. (C) No.1085/2002 by which, though the writ petition of the appellant against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal2[CAT] in O.A. No. 232/2002 was allowed, liberty was given to the disciplinary authority to issue a fresh note of disagreement to the appellant, within a period of four weeks, and pass appropriate orders after considering the response.
Background Facts
3. This case has a checkered history. The appellant at the relevant time (i.e. 1984) was posted as Inspector of Police (i.e., Station House Officer3[SHO]) at Police Station Kingsway Camp, North District, Delhi. During that period, post assassination of the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi, “Anti-Sikh Riots4[1984 riots]” broke out. In May 1985, the appellant was promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Police, inter alia, on appraisal of service record. Later, a Committee was constituted to look into the failure of the police in effectively tackling the 1984 riots. In its preliminary report, the Committee castigated certain police officers for their failure in controlling the riots. Based on that, charge memo was issued to the appellant on 20.08.1992, inter alia, charging him for dereliction of duty/ negligence in controlling those riots in the area under his command. In the ensuing inquiry, vide report dated 28.01.1999, the Inquiry Officer exonerated the appellant of the charges. However, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the report of the Inquiry Officer and ordered a de novo inquiry vide office order dated 07.10.1999.
4. Aggrieved by direction for a de novo inquiry, the appellant filed Original Application5[O.A.] No.1841/2000 before Principal Bench of CAT at New Delhi. CAT allowed the said O.A. vide order dated 27.09.2000. The operative portion of the order is extracted below:
“6…We find that the disciplinary authority is … not justified in ordering a de novo enquiry. If one has regard to the …..rule 15 ….., all that he could have ordered was a further enquiry and not a de novo enquiry. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority on 06.08.1999…is quashed and set aside.
7. Consequent upon the aforesaid order of the disciplinary authority of 06.08.1999, a corrigendum has been issued by the disciplinary authority on 07.10.1999…, whereby, an amended charge has been framed. Since the order of the disciplinary authority of 06.08.1999 is set aside, aforesaid consequential corrigendum of 07.10.1999 is also quashed and set aside.
8. In view of the aforesaid order, we find that it would be open to the disciplinary authority, if he is so advised, to issue fresh orders disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, but this he can do only after issue of a notice and after affording applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thereafter, in case he is inclined to issue a direction for a fresh enquiry, the same would not be a de novo enquiry in the matter.
9. Present OA is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.”
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of CAT, on 04.01.2001 the Disciplinary Authority issued a disagreement note calling upon the appellant to submit his representation within 15 days of its receipt. The Inquiry Report was supplied later vide letter dated 18.01.2001.
6. After getting response from the appellant, the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 28.12.2001, imposed a penalty of reduction in rank upon the appellant thereby demoting him to the post of Inspector from the post of Assistant Commissioner of Police, till retirement (i.e., till 31.03.2004).
7. The appellant challenged the order of punishment before CAT through O.A. No.232/2002, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.01.2002.
8. Aggrieved by CAT’s order dated 29.01.2002, the appellant filed writ petition (i.e., W.P. (C) No.1085/2002) before the
