Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3725
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
REKHA PALLI, J.
Jeet Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Police & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 8536 of 2014
Decided On : 13-09-2017
For the Petitioner:Petitioner-in-person
For the Respondents:Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC for GNCTD with Ms. Niti Jain, Mr. Deboshree Mukherjee, Advocates
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for appropriate reasons to be given by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority, and the appellate authority in a departmental enquiry. The court emphasized that the charges against the officer must be proved by consideration of the evidence brought before the Enquiry Officer.
Headnote:
Dismissal - Delhi Police Constable - Delhi Police Act, 1978, Section 21 - The court examined the legal framework applied in reaching its decision. The court found the enquiry report to be based on no evidence and held it to be perverse. The court set aside the enquiry report and all consequential proceedings. The court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and grant him 50% arrears of salary and allowances with all consequential benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a constable in the Delhi Police, was dismissed from service following departmental proceedings initiated against him. The petitioner challenged his dismissal and the enquiry report, alleging that the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer were based on no evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the enquiry report to be based on no evidence and held it to be perverse. The court set aside the enquiry report and all consequential proceedings. The court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and grant him 50% arrears of salary and allowances with all consequential benefits.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the departmental proceedings, the evidence presented in the enquiry report, and the petitioner's dismissal from service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for appropriate reasons to be given by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority, and the appellate authority. It held that a departmental enquiry is a quasi-judicial proceeding and the charges against the officer must be proved by consideration of the evidence brought before the Enquiry Officer.
Final Decision: The court set aside the enquiry report and all consequential proceedings, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and grant him 50% arrears of salary and allowances with all consequential benefits.
REKHA PALLI, J.
1. The present writ petition assails the order dated 22.07.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A No.1779/1994 dismissing the Petitioner’s said O.A. The Petitioner, who was a Constable in the Respondent i.e. Delhi Police, had preferred the aforesaid O.A challenging order dated 22.10.1993 vide which he was dismissed from service.
2. The Petitioner had joined Delhi Police/Respondent as a Constable on 08.09.1982 and received as many as thirty five certificates and cash rewards for his meritorious service and in his 13 years of service before his impugned dismissal.
3. The Petitioner submitted a complaint dated 05.12.1991 against Shri A.A. Siddiqui the then ACP/adjutant 6 DAP, wherein he alleged about his harassment by the said ACP. Since no action was taken on the said complaint, the Petitioner submitted another complaint, wherein he expressed his apprehensions that the ACP/ A.A. Siddiqui might get him killed; may get his children kidnapped, or; harm him in a big way. It transpires that on the one hand, no action was taken on the Petitioner’s complaints against the ACP/ Shri A.A. Siddiqui-and, on the other hand, departmental proceedings were started against the Petitioner.
4. A summary of allegation dated 13.12.1992 was issued to the Petitioner alleging therein that he had leveled baseless and malicious allegations against ACP/ A.A. Siddiqui. It was also alleged therein that he had committed misconduct by going to the office of Hindi Daily ‘Rashtriya Sahara’ to plant a news item.
5. However, soon thereafter, the Petitioner was issued another summary of allegations dated 12.02.1993, in which it was alleged that upon detection of four objectionable bills in M.T. section, the Petitioner had been removed from M.T. section and sent to General Duty. Enraged at his posting to General Duty, the Petitioner had resorted to mischief, refusal to perform Government duties, rumour mongering etc. It was further stated that a News Item, leveling false, frivolous and serious allegations against a Gazetted Officer of the battalion regarding the Petitioner’s harassment and intimidation by the Gazetted Officer had been published in the Hindi Daily ‘Rashtriya Sahara’ dated 23, 24, 25.05.1992 and thus the Petitioner was alleged to have indulged in character assassination of a Gazetted Officer knowingly, and with ulterior motives.
6. The two successive Summary of Allegations issued to the Petitioner hereinafter referred to as No.I & No.II respectively read as under:-
I-13.12.1992
“It is alleged that Constable Jeet Singh, No.7330/DAP, 404/DAP while posted in this Bn. Had submitted a complaint dated 05.12.1991 against Shri. A.A. Siddiqui, ACP/Adjt., 6th Bn. DAP that he was being harrassed by him. The complaint was entrusted to Shri Devi Chand, ACP of this Bn. By Shri. A.A. Farooquee, the DCP/6th Bn. DAP for conducting and enquiry into the attar. Again on 13-04-1992 Const. Jeet Sing submitted another application to the then DCP/6TH Bn. Against Shri A.A. Siddiqui, ACP/Adjt. that he was being harassed by the ACP/Adjt. and that the ACP may get him killed, may get his children kidnapped or may harm him a big way. The same was also entrusted to ACP Devi Chand for conduction an enquiry. ACP Devi Chand submitted his report of his enquiry in both the complaints concluding there in that the allegations leveled by Const. Jeet Singh against Shri. A.A. Siddiqui were baseless, prejudiced and malicious. Secondly it is alleged that Const. Jeet Singh, No. 7330/DAP, 404/DAP committed the misconduct of going to the office of Hindi Daily ‘Rashtriya Sahara’ and feeding false, baseless and malicious story to the reporter which printed on 23,24& 26-05-92.
The above act on the part of Const. Jeet Singh, No. 7330/DAP amounts to grave misconduct and is unbecoming of a member of deplaned force and as such renders him liable for departmental action under section 21 of Delhi Police Act,1978.”
II- 12.02.1993
“It is alleged
