Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 131
High Court of Delhi
S. RAVINDRA BHAT & VIPIN SANGHI, JJ.
Jagdish Ambedkar – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 5484 of 2004
Decided On : 30-01-2015
For the Petitioner:Raj Kumar Bhartia, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, Akshay Makhija, CGSC along with Rohitendra Deb, R2 to R5, V.K. Tandon, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice and be conducted in accordance with the applicable laws and rules. The Court clarified that detailed reasoning by the Appellate Authority is not necessary if it agrees with the findings of the disciplinary inquiry.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Proceedings - Delhi Police Act, 1978 - Rules of 1980 - Summary of allegations - Charges framed without evidence - Violation of principles of natural justice - Opportunity to reply - Opportunity to summon defense witnesses - Appellate Authority's reasoning - Upheld by the Court
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police, was dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings initiated against him for alleged misconduct, including absence from duty and distributing leaflets highlighting demands of police personnel. The Petitioner challenged the dismissal through various legal avenues.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Delhi Police Act, 1978 and the Rules of 1980. It held that the Inquiry Officer had adhered to principles of natural justice and provided the Petitioner with ample opportunities to present his defense. The Court also upheld the Appellate Authority's dismissal of the appeal, stating that detailed reasoning was not required if the Authority agreed with the findings of the disciplinary inquiry.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the disciplinary proceedings, including the initiation of the inquiry, framing of charges, opportunity to reply, and the Appellate Authority's reasoning.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the applicable laws and rules. It held that the Inquiry Officer had followed the principles of natural justice and provided the Petitioner with sufficient opportunities to present his defense. The Court also clarified that detailed reasoning by the Appellate Authority was not necessary if it agreed with the findings of the disciplinary inquiry.
Final Decision: The Court upheld the order of the Tribunal, dismissing the Writ Petition and affirming the disciplinary action taken against the Petitioner.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
1. The present Writ Petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 16.01.2002 in M.A. No. 273 of 2001, order dated 24.01.2001 in R.A. No. 7 of 1999 and order dated 24.11.1998 in O.A. No. 514 of 1993, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the applications.
2. The Petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector (Executive) [SI (E)] on 30.06.1979 in Delhi Police on the recommendations of the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in the pay scale of Rs. 425-15-530-EB-15-560-20-600. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch (DCP, SB) posted the Petitioner in the communist section of the Special Branch in 1982.
3. The DCP, SB directed, vide order no. 5681-90/Z dated 16.11.1982, all Special Branch staff, except the ones at Jawahar Lal Nehru National Stadium to report for duty to Special Branch Control Room on 19.11.1982, which was a gazetted holiday in view of ASIAD 82. The Petitioner wrote on that order that he would attend office only when orders for grant of compensatory leave or payment of compensatory pay will be issued. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) personally called the Petitioner, asking him to comply with the orders of the DCP; he was informed that if he failed to come on duty then he would be considered as absent. Regardless of these orders, the Petitioner is alleged to have been absent from office on 19.11.1982.
4. On 18.12.1982, the Petitioner was allegedly found distributing cyclostyled copies of papers in Hindi amongst the staff of Special Branch. The copies highlighted the demands of the Delhi Police Personnel.
5. The Petitioner was placed under suspension on 18.12.1982 vide order no. 9263-83/CR(SB). On 20.12.1982, he was allegedly found writing objectionable things at the entrance of the Police Headquarters (PHQ). Thereafter, the DCP, SB ordered for a preliminary inquiry under Rule 15 of the Delhi Police Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1980 (Rules of 1980) vide order no. 9433-40/CR(SB) dated 22.12.1982 into the conduct of the Petitioner. The preliminary inquiry was conducted and a report was submitted to the DCP, SB.
6. On the basis of the preliminary inquiry, the DCP, SB issued orders for holding a regular inquiry into the conduct of the Petitioner vide order no. 9433-40/CR(SB) dated 24.12.1982. The Inquiry Officer framed a charge-sheet with the approval of the Disciplinary Authority and it was served upon the Petitioner on 22.03.1983. In response, the Petitioner first submitted his resignation and stated that since he ceased to be a police officer he could not be charge sheeted. He then wrote a letter stating that what was alleged against him was correct and he may be removed from service. Later, he pleaded not guilty. The inquiry report dated 04.04.1983 was submitted by the inquiry officer, holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges.
7. On the basis of the said inquiry report, the DCP eventually dismissed the Petitioner from service with immediate effect on 24.08.1983. It further held that the suspension period would be treated as not having spent on duty. The Petitioner made representations and revisions, which were rejected. Hence, he approached this court in Writ proceedings which were transferred to the CAT and registered as TA404/86. The Tribunal by order dated 02.01.1987 held that once an officer pleads not guilty, the inquiry officer is bound by Rule 16 (iii) of the Rules of 1980 to record evidence in support of the charge. The Respondents were directed by the Tribunal to initiate fresh inquiry in accordance with the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (DP Act), along with the direction to reinstate the Petitioner from the date of dismissal, but to consider whether to keep him under suspension till the disciplinary proceedings are completed.
8. On 25.03.1987, an inquiry was ordered to be held in accordance with the order of the Tribunal in TA 404/86. The summary of allegations levelled against the Petitioner on 01.04.1987 read as follows:
"It is a
