Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, EENA BANSAL KRISHNA, JJ.
Dhiraj Kumar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.13915 Of 2019
Decided On : 01-05-2023
Misconduct - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) & (iii) - Rule 3(1) - Articles I, II, III, IV
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Deputy Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force, was served with a Presidential Memorandum on charges of misconduct. The inquiry proceedings resulted in the finding that Article-I was proved, Article-III was partially proved, and Article-II and IV were not proved. The Disciplinary Authority sought advice from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), which recommended a minor penalty. The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) advised a penalty of reduction in pay for three years. The petitioner challenged the penalty orders in various courts, alleging procedural lapses and mala fide intentions by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution witnesses did not support the case of the respondents and were allegedly pressurized to depose against the petitioner. The court observed that the penalty imposed on the petitioner was not commensurate with the evidence and suffered from procedural lapses. The court set aside the penalty orders and directed the respondents to refix the petitioner's pay, seniority, and financial benefits within four weeks.
Issues: Alleged misconduct, procedural lapses, mala fide intentions by the respondents
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the penalty imposed on the petitioner was not commensurate with the evidence and suffered from procedural lapses. The court also observed that the prosecution witnesses did not support the case of the respondents and were allegedly pressurized to depose against the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court set aside the penalty orders and directed the respondents to refix the petitioner's pay, seniority, and financial benefits within four weeks.
JUDGMENT :
(Suresh Kumar Kait, J.) :—
Petitioner, a Deputy (Dy.) Commandant in Central Reserve Police Force (“CRPF”) was served with a Presidential Memorandum dated 24.05.2007 on the following Charge:—
“MEMORANDUM
The President proposes to hold an inquiry against Shri Dhiraj Kumar Singh, Dy. Commandant (IRLA 4246) of 89 Bn CRPF presently posted in O/O IGP CS CRPF Lucknow under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of which the inquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of Articles of charge (Annexure-I). A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge is enclosed (Annexure-II). A list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annexure-III & IV).
ARTICLE-I
That the said Shri Dhiraj Kumar Singh Dy. Commandant while posted and functioning as Dy. Commandant/QM/MTO in 89 Bn CRPF committed an act of misconduct in that he collected some spare parts for Maruti car amounting to Rs. 2,760/- through No. 9 13155142 CT/Dvr Ram Bachan Singh of 89 Bn on 06/12(03 from M/s. United Motor Stores, GT Road, Ferozepur Cantt and did not make any payment for the same for which the firm concerned approached the CRPF authorities. Thus Shri Dhiraj Kumar Singh, Dy. Commandant has failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt servant; thereby violating the provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-II
That the said Shri Dhiraj Kumar Singh Dy. Commandant while posted in aforesaid Unit and functioning as QM/MTO of the Unit committed an act of misconduct in that on 05/10/03, he sent vehicle Regn. No. DIG-424 Tata Truck of 89, Bn for repairs for repairs of M/s. Luxmi Machinery Stores, GT road, Ferozepur Cantt, whereas as per comparative statement approved by the competent authority on 22/09/03, the said vehicle was to be repaired by M/s. Mahavir General Store, GT Road, Ferozepur Cantt for which supply/work order was also give to the firm on 05/10/.03 under the signature of Shri Dhiraj Kumar Singh Dy. Commandant being the QM/MTO of the unit. Thus Shri Dhiraj Kumar Singh, DY. Commandant has failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt servant; thereby violating the provisions contained in Rule 3(1), (i), (ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-III
That the said Shri Dhiraj Kumar Singh Dy. Commandant while posted in aforesaid Unit committed an act, of misconduct in that on 15/10/2003, he collected Rs. 6,000/- in cash from M/s. Mahavir General Store, GT road, Ferozepur Cantt on the pretext of paying the same to MIS Luxmi Machinery Store, GT Road, Ferozepur Cantt for the portion of job work/repair done by-them on vehicle Regn. No. DIG-424 but instead of paying the amount to M/s. Luxmi Machinery Stores, Ferozepur Cantt., he retained the amount with him. Thus Shri Dhiraj Kumar Singh, Dy. Commandant has failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant; thereby violating the provisions contained in Rule 3(1) (i), (ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-IV
That while posted and functioning as Accounts Officer in 89 Bn CRPF the said Shri Dhiraj Kumar Singh, Dy. Commandant committed a serious misconduct in that on 07/02/04, he collected Rs. 11,400/- from Shri R. Gautam, Asstt. Commandant who had received ‘the same from GC CRPF Jallandhar for meeting the expenditure in connection with function organized on the eve of presentation ceremony of B.est Ops Bn : trophy. Thereafter, he neither took the amount in Cash book nor maintained any account of the amount or deposited the unspent amount in the fund and kept the amount with him unauthorisedly. Thus Shri Dhiraj Kumar Singh, Dy.
AI
Point of Law : It would not be safe to rely on the examination-in-chief recorded which was not subjected to cross examination before the summon was made.
The court affirmed the principle that judicial review of administrative actions in disciplinary processes is limited to procedural correctness, not evidential review, and mandated reconsideration of ....
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and considered the petitioner's circumstances in modifying the penalty imposed.
The absence of Presenting Officers in disciplinary proceedings violates natural justice, necessitating the setting aside of dismissal orders and reinstatement of affected personnel.
: Service – Punishment - once the charges levelled against the delinquent employee are proved then it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the delinque....
The dismissal of the petitioner was quashed due to a flawed inquiry process that violated principles of natural justice, resulting in shockingly disproportionate punishment.
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
