Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Jitinder Tiwari - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 5785/2013
Decided On : 08-08-2022
Misconduct - Disciplinary Proceedings - Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 - Sections 341/506/34 IPC - Summary: The petitioner, a Sub Inspector of Police, was charged with detaining and harassing individuals, allowing unauthorized possession of a house, and registering a false FIR. The disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of forfeiture of 2 years approved service permanently. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed, and the CAT upheld the decision, finding the charges fully proved based on evidence. The court held that the findings were not perverse and the departmental enquiry was in accordance with the rules. The petition was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sub Inspector of Police, was charged with detaining and harassing individuals, allowing unauthorized possession of a house, and registering a false FIR. The disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of forfeiture of 2 years approved service permanently. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed, and the CAT upheld the decision, finding the charges fully proved based on evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The CAT found the charges fully proved based on evidence and dismissed the Original Application. The court held that the findings were not perverse and the departmental enquiry was in accordance with the rules.
Issues: The petitioner challenged the order of punishment and the co-charged official did not prefer any writ petition. The petitioner argued that the disciplinary authority and the CAT committed material irregularity and illegality by inflicting the punishment and by upholding the punishment order. The petitioner further stated that the evidence does not establish his guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the findings were not perverse and the departmental enquiry was in accordance with the rules. The court also emphasized that the scope of judicial interference in departmental enquiry is very limited and that the High Court cannot act as a second court of first appeal.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and no order as to costs was given.
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the Order dated 13.05.2011, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (CAT) in O.A. No. 2725/2009 by which the Original Application challenging the order of punishment dated 26.08.2008 and the order rejecting the appeal was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner who, at the relevant point of time was serving as Sub Inspector of Police was subjected to disciplinary proceedings along with one Om Prakash Ahlawat. The allegations leveled against the petitioner and Om Prakash Ahlawat reveal that while posted at Police Station Paschim Vihar they detained Smt. Santosh Jain and Smt. Anita Jain along with her two minor children in the absence of any male family member of the family. The action was taken by the petitioner as well as Om Prakash Ahlwat based upon a complaint of Smt. Meenu Jain dated 03.05.2002. The facts further reveal that ignoring the earlier complaint of Smt. Santosh Jain dated 02.05.2002 and her PCR calls, action was taken against her. The charges further reveal that Smt. Santosh Jain and her daughter-in-law and minor children were detained in the Police Station from 9:30 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. on 05.05.2002. They were allegedly humiliated and threatened to vacate the house. The facts further reveal that on account of the detention and harassment, Smt. Santosh Jain fell sick and she was hospitalized at Muni Maya Ram Jain Hospital, Pitampura from 05.05.2002 at 06:00 P.M. to 06.05.2002 at 10:00 P.M.
3. It is further alleged that on 05.05.2002, the Petitioner accompanied Smt. Meenu Jain to Flat No. GH-9/149, Paschim Vihar in the absence of the owner Smt. Santosh Jain and her family and permitted her to take possession of the house by breaking the locks.
4. The allegations further reveal that on 06.05.2002, the petitioner also got an FIR registered i.e. FIR No. 200/2002 under Sections 341/506/34 IPC at Police Station Paschim Vihar against Smt. Santosh Jain and her family without proper verification.
5. Based upon the complaint made by Smt. Santosh Jain on 07.05.2002, a charge sheet was issued on 12.11.2002 keeping in view the Delhi Police Establishment Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1980. The imputation of misconduct as reflected from the charge sheet is reproduced as under:
'I, Dr. P.S. Bhushan, Deputy Commissioner of Police, D.E. Cell, Delhi, the Enquiry Officer) hereby charge you Inspr. Om Parkash Ahlawat No. D-1/908 and SI Jitender Tiwari No. D/305 that on 05.05.2002 while you were posted as SHO/PS Paschim Vihar and SI/IO/PS Paschim Vihar respectively (both of) you took Smt Santosh Jain and Smt Anita Jain alongwith her two minor children in absence of any male family member to P S Paschim Vihar in pursuance of complaint of Suit Menu Jain dated 03/05/2002 ignoring earlier complaints of Smt Santosh Jain dated 02/05/2002 and her PCR call Both of you detained Smt Santosh Jain and her daughter-in-law Smt Anita Jain and her minor children in P S Paschim Vihar from 9:30 AM to 3:39 PM on 05/05/2002 where they were humiliated and threatened to vacate the house Due to above detention and harassment, Smt. Santosh Jain was hospitalized at Muni Maya Ram Jain Hospital, Pitampura, Delhi from 05/05/2002 (6:00 PM) to 06/05/2002 (10:00 PM). You SI Jitender Tiwari No D/305 accompanied Smt Meenu Jain to Flat No. GH-9/149, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi in the absence of the owner Smt Santosh Jain and her family due to her hospitalisation) and allowed Smt Menu Jain to enter into the Flat after breaking open the locks of the house in your presence on 6/5/2002, you SI Jitender Tiwari No D/305 also got FIR No 200/2002 u/s 341/506/34 IPC registered at PS Paschim Vihar against Sh Ravinder Kumar Jain and his family on flimsy ground without proper verification. The above act on the part of you Inspr. Om Parkash Ahlawat No. D-1/908 and SI Jitender Tiwari No. D/305 amounts to grave misconduct and acting in a partisan
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial interference in departmental enquiries and the principle that the High Court cannot act as a second court of first appeal.
An authority higher than the appointing authority can impose discipline, and misconduct proved through witness testimony withstands judicial review unless procedural irregularities are evident.
In disciplinary proceedings, findings must be supported by substantial evidence, and misconduct can be established by preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.
The High Court does not act as an appellate authority in disciplinary matters and will not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is shocking to the conscience.
In departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probabilities, and the court will not interfere with the disciplinary authority's findings unless there is a clear ....
The court emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline and the requirement to prove prejudice in cases of non-serving of enquiry report, affirming the authority's discretion in disciplinary pr....
Fairness in disciplinary proceedings requires adherence to natural justice, and actions unsupported by adequate evidence are not sustainable.
The main legal point established is the limited scope of interference in departmental inquiries by the court, which can only be done in specific circumstances such as violation of principles of natur....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
