Satish Chandra Verma, Ips vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 4231

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ.
Satish Chandra Verma, Ips – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P. (C) 10486 of 2021 & C.M. No. 32298 of 2021 W.P.(C) 10493 of 2021 & C.M. No. 15428 of 2022, W.P.(C) 10519 of 2021 & C.M. No. 32389 of 2021, W.P.(C)10539 of 2021 & C.M. Nos. 32491 of 2021, 32493 of 2021 & 42464 of 2022
Decided On : 24-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. I.H. Syed, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul Sharma & Ms. Suroor Mander, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate and Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC along with Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Ms. Gauraan, Mr. Nishant Bahuguna and Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Mr. Sagar Mehlawat, Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday Advocates and Mr. A.K. Saran, JS (P-1), for the Respondent/UOI.
Mr. Kumar Parimal, Advocate, for the Respondent No.7/NEEPCO.
Ms. Manisha Lav Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ravi Kant Jain, Advocate, for the Respondent No.9/State of Gujarat.

Headnote:(A) All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 - Rule 3(1), 6, 7, 9, and 17 - Disciplinary Proceedings - Petitioner, an IPS officer, dismissed from service for unauthorized media interaction and criticisms of government actions regarding a sensitive case - Inquiry Authority held all charges proved based on interactions with the press without authorization or maintaining integrity - PIL filed against dismissal and related proceedings - Court upheld dismissal stating all procedural requirements met and evidence substantiated misconduct. (Paras 7, 30, 30, 86)

(B) Inquiry Standards - The Inquiry Authority's duties are quasi-judicial and must operate independently, and fairness is paramount throughout disciplinary proceedings - The court reiterated that procedural prescriptions must be followed and evidence for findings must be substantial. (Paras 34, 75)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner, a 1986-batch IPS officer, was charged with interacting with media regarding a police encounter case while serving as CVO at NEEPCO, leading to accusations of misconduct under the All India Services (Conduct) Rules after he publicly criticized governmental actions.

Findings of Court:
The inquiry process followed was deemed proper, and the reliance on video evidence was justified despite the petitioner's claims. The disciplinary action was confirmed to be substantiated by evidence and met procedural requirements.

Issues: Whether the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner complied with legal standards of fairness and adequate evidence to support the findings of misconduct.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the disciplinary authority had acted properly according to law, with adequate evidence provided for the charges, maintaining that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the proceedings lacked in due process or fairness.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed, confirming dismissal from service.

Table of Content
1. background facts of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. details of the charge memos issued against the petitioner (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
3. conclusion from inquiry authority and disciplinary authority's findings (Para 26 , 27 , 60 , 61 , 62)
4. petitioner's arguments regarding procedural fairness (Para 32 , 34 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
5. conclusion of judgment confirming dismissal (Para 88 , 90)

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. In W.P. (C) 10486 of 2021, Petitioner, seeks quashing of Judgment dated 22.07.2021, of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.A. 452 of 2020 (erroneously referred to as O.A. 454 of 2020 in the judgment) and also seeks quashing of charge memo dated 28.09.2018.

2. In W.P. (C) 10493 of 2021, Petitioner seeks quashing of the Judgment dated 22.07.2021, of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.A. 454 of 2020 (erroneously referred to as O.A. 452 of 2020 in the judgment) and also seeks quashing of adverse entries against the Petitioner in his annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 2015 -2016.

3. In W.P. (C) 10519 of 2021, Petitioner seeks quashing of the Judgment dated 22.07.2021, of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.A. 3610 of 2019 and also seeks quashing of charge memo dated 09.05.2016.

4. In W.P. (C) 10539 of 2021, Petitioner had initially sought quashing of the Judgment dated 22.07.2021, of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.A. 453 of 2020 and also sought quashing of charge memo dated 13.08.2018. Subsequently, the petition was amended in terms of the liberty granted by the Supreme Court of India by its order dated 19.09.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 6775 of 2022 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 15913 of 2022. By the amendment the Petitioner additionally seeks quashing of the Departmental Inquiry Report dated 02.12.2020 of the Directorate General, ITBP, Ministry of Home Affairs and also seeks quashing of order dated 30.08.2022 dismissing the petitioner from service.

5. By a common Judgment dated 22.07.2021, rendered in O.A. No. 452 of 2020 (impugned in W.P. (C) 10486/2021), O.A. No. 453 of 2020 (impugned in W.P. (C) 10539/2021) and O.A. No. 3610 of 2019 (impugned in W.P. (C) 10519/2021), the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), rejected the challenge of the Petitioner to three different memoranda of charge issued to the Petitioner and directed that the disciplinary proceedings be expeditiously concluded.

6. By a Judgment also dated 22.07.2021 rendered in O.A. No. 454 of 2020 (impugned in W.P. (C) 10493/2021), the Tribunal permitted the petitioner to submit a representation to the Competent Authority for deletion of adverse entries and proper evaluation of Performance Appraisal Report of the year 2015-16.

7. Pending the consideration of the subject Petitions, Petitioner was imposed the Penalty of "dismissal from service" by order dated 30.08.2022 which has now been impugned in W.P. (C) 10539/2021 by amending the Petition.

8. Petitioner was an Indian Police Service Officer of 1986 batch of the Gujarat Cadre.

9. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted by the High Court of Gujarat for investigating an incident of the year 2004, wherein four persons, including a woman, by name, Ishrat Jahan were killed in a police firing. Petitioner was a member of the SIT which carried out the investigation and submitted its report.

10. Petitioner was subsequently appointed as Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation (NEEPCO), on 08.10.2014 on central deputation.

11. On 13.08.2018, a charge memo was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, with four articles of charge. It was stated that the Petitioner gave an interview to a news channel "India Today" on 2nd and 3rd March, 2016 in the official premises of NEEPCO at Guwahati, without any authority.

12.