SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Del) 1418

High Court Of Delhi
INDERJIT SINGH - Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI - Respondent
C.W. 1391 of 2000
Decided On : 09/17/2002

Advocates Appeared:
MONIKA SHARMA, SANJIV KHANNA

The importance of proportionality in administrative decisions relating to punishment in disciplinary cases and the principles of unreasonableness in reviewing punishment.

Headnote:

Disciplinary Proceedings - Delhi Police Act, 1978 - Section 21 - [DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS] - [DELHI POLICE ACT, 1978, SECTION 21] - The court discussed the charges against the petitioner, the findings of the disciplinary authority, and the appellate authority's decision. The court also considered the legal provisions under Section 21 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, and Rule 8 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. The court emphasized the importance of proportionality in administrative decisions relating to punishment in disciplinary cases and highlighted the principles of unreasonableness in reviewing punishment.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Constable in the Delhi Police, was dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings based on charges of grave misconduct, disobedience, and threatening a Head Constable. The disciplinary authority found the charges proved and dismissed the petitioner from service. The appellate authority upheld the decision.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the charges against the petitioner were supported by sufficient evidence, and the disciplinary proceedings adhered to the principles of natural justice. The court also emphasized the importance of proportionality in administrative decisions relating to punishment in disciplinary cases.

Issues: The issues involved the dismissal of the petitioner from service based on charges of grave misconduct, disobedience, and threatening a Head Constable. The petitioner contested the sufficiency of evidence and the proportionality of the punishment imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proportionality in administrative decisions relating to punishment in disciplinary cases and highlighted the principles of unreasonableness in reviewing punishment. The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner from service based on the findings of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the petitioner.

S. B. SINHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against a judgment and order dated 14th October, 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 2495/97 whereby and whereunder the original application filed by the petitioner herein questioning the order of the disciplinary authority dated 8. 5. 97 and that of the appellate authority dated 12. 8. 97; was dismissed. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as a Constable in the Delhi Police. On 10. 7. 1996 while he was posted as a Constable in the 6th Bn. Delhi Armed Police he went to CGHS dispensary for medical check up as allegedly he was not feeling well. The doctor advised him rest for two days However on his return he was asked to report to 3rd Bn. On the same day, according to the petitioner he was beaten up by Head Constable Suresh Kumar and was examined in Hindu Rao Hospital. A discipline proceedings was initiated against him wherein a charge sheet was served upon the petitione which is to the following terms: -

"charge i, Balbir Singh, Inspector -6th Bn. DAP, Delhi (Enquiry Officer) charge you, Const. Indereet Singh No. 7322/dap that you were deputed to perform duty in 3rd Bn. DAP and made a departure vide DD No. 43 on 10. 7. 96. Despite complying the orders, you went to BHM s office and said that he has not done good four you. You also threatened the BHM/6th Bn. DAP for dire consequences in the presence of Const. Vijay Pal No. 7456/dap and S. I. Raghu Nath. A report to this effect was lodged vide DD No. 44 dated 10. 7. 96 6th Bn. DAP. Again you went to the residence of HC Suresh Kumar No. 7179/dap, BHM/6th Bn. DAP at Qr. No. 33-0, Police Colony Model Town-II and threaten him to kill his family members. A report to this effect was also lodged vide DD No. 50 dt. 10. 7. 96, 6th Bn. DAP. Thereafter, at 5. 55 PM, you instead of reporting in 3rd Bn. DAP, went to Hindu Rao Hospital and get yourself medically examined after fabricating a false story that you were beaten up by HC Suresh Kumar No. 7179/dap, BHM and also gave written complaint to SI Suresh Kumar of PS model Town stating therein that after your departure to 3rd Bn. You went to your barrack to collect your belongings, where HC Suresh Kumar, BHM/6th Bn. Came and gave you severe beatings. The above act on your part amounts to grave misconduct, indiscipline, remissness, negligence and dereliction of duty, you acted yourself in a manner of unbecoming of a police officer. This renders you liable for departmental action in accordance with rules for punishment as envisaged under section 21 of Delhi Police Act, 1978. "

( 2 ) IN the said disciplinary proceedings the enquiry officer found that the charges leveled against the petitioner have been proved in terms of his report dated 15. 1. 1997 holding (1) He disobeyed Head Constable Suresh Kumar. (2) He threatened Head Constable Suresh Kumar. (3) The MLC with regard to injuries suffered by him is false and incorrect. The disciplinary authority forwarded a copy of the said enquiry report to him. A show cause notice was also issued where too he had filed his representation. By reason of the impugned order dated 8. 5. 1997 the disciplinary authority upon considering the entire material on record and in particular the report of the enquiry officer as well as the representation of the petitioner opined:-

"in the light of above discussion and record on DE file I am of the considered view that the charge against the defaulter const. Inderjeet Singh, 7322/ DAP has been fully proved during the course of De proceedings. The charges against him are very grave which make him unworthy of serving in the force. I have also heard him in the O. R. On 2. 5. 97. He had nothing to say in his defence during personal appearance. Such type of arrogant and indiscipline person is completely unfit to be retained in police force and therefore his retention in the department is highly detrimental to maintain the morale discipline and decorum amongst the o














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top