Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Asha Menon, JJ.
Anil Kumar Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3596 of 2021
Decided On : 19-03-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to disciplinary orders (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's defense and evidence concerns (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. judicial review limitations and considerations (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. writ petition dismissal (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed challenging orders dated 28th February 2020, 25th June 2020 and 26th August 2020 passed by the Disciplinary, Appellate and Revisional Authorities respectively and as a consequence thereof to reinstate the petitioner in service along with all consequential benefits.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner, a Head Constable with the Railway Protection Force (RPF) was issued a charge sheet dated 27th November 2019 for holding an inquiry against him under Rule 153 of RPF Rules on five charges. She states that the Petitioner denied the charge(s) against him pursuant to which a departmental inquiry was initiated against him. She states that the Inquiry Officer wrongly indicted the petitioner of all the five charges. She further states that vide order dated 28th February 2020, the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and imposed the harshest punishment of dismissal from service. She also states that vide order dated 25th June 2020, the appeal of the Petitioner was mechanically rejected by the Appellate Authority and vide order dated 26th August 2020, the revision petition of the Petitioner was also rejected.
3. She emphasises that during investigation, Ashutosh Pavgi had stated that he had made a video under pressure and therefore the video could not have been relied upon by the inquiry officer.
4. Having perused the paper book, this Court finds that the petitioner is virtually asking this Court to re-appreciate the entire evidence, which is not permissible in writ jurisdiction.
5. This Court finds that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry proceedings. The fact that the petitioner had been punished nineteen times in the past, as mentioned by the Revisional Authority, proves that petitioner's conduct had not been good in service. As the petitioner is a member of a disciplined force, this Court is of the view that he is not entitled to any relief.
6. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed.
Disciplinary actions against force members require evidence compliance, and re-appraisal of evidence is not permissible in writ jurisdiction; prior conduct can justify stringent penalties.
High court cannot sit in appeal and examine the reasons assigned by the authority and confirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authority.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, ruling that failure to do so can lead to quashing of punitive actions.
Disciplinary proceedings must prioritize conduct and efficiency; failure to engage in due process can lead to disciplinary action despite claims of injustice.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to court directions and ensuring fairness in the disciplinary proceeding.
The disciplinary authority is not bound to accept the inquiry officer's findings and must ensure adherence to procedural rules in conducting inquiries, even amid ongoing criminal proceedings.
The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner from service, finding the punishment proportionate to the gravity of his repeated misconduct and not warranting judicial intervention.
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
