Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Amit Bansal, JJ.
Subhash Malik - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police - Respondent
W.P.(C) 4187 of 2021
Decided On : 08-04-2021
The High Court's jurisdiction in disciplinary matters under Article 226 is limited to procedural errors and natural justice violations, not substantive reassessment of disciplinary findings.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Disciplinary proceedings - The petitioner, an Inspector in Delhi Police, challenged a censure for professional misconduct relating to a complaint of a missing person, despite not being in the position at that time. The Disciplinary Authority found gross misconduct due to lack of action despite knowledge of the complaint upon taking the role. (Paras 3-6)
(B) Jurisdiction under Article 226 - The High Court affirmed that its role in disciplinary matters is to check for procedural errors or natural justice violations, not to reassess findings on merit unless the decision is arbitrary or capricious, referencing various precedents. (Paras 8)
(C) Observations made by the Central Administrative Tribunal deemed uncalled for and potentially damaging to the petitioner's career were addressed, ensuring they would not hinder future promotions or postings. (Para 10-11)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disciplinary proceedings context. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. reasoning of the disciplinary authority. (Para 6) |
| 3. jurisdiction of the high court. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. comments by cat affecting promotions. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. final order regarding adverse comments. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORDER
CM APPL. 12733/2021 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per the extant rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4187/2021
3. The petition impugns the order dated 4th January, 2021 of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, of dismissal of OA No. 2214/2020 preferred by the petitioner, an Inspector in the respondents Delhi Police, against the punishment of `censure' meted out to him in disciplinary proceedings and confirmed in the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner.
4. The said disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and two others were initiated in pursuance to certain observations in an order in a Habeas Corpus petition preferred in this Court. This Court, while disposing of the Habeas Corpus petition observed that there was lack of diligence on the part of officials concerned.
5. It is the case of the petitioner, that he was not even the Station House Officer (SHO) of the concerned Police Station when the complaint of missing person/elopement, subject matter of the Habeas Corpus petition, was lodged and joined the said Police Station as an SHO subsequently and thus the disciplinary proceedings against him were unwarranted.
6. We have perused the order dated 22nd March, 2019 of the Disciplinary Authority, at page 243 of the file, and find the Disciplinary Authority to have reasoned (i) that the petitioner, since his joining as SHO of the concerned Police Station on 13th June, 2017 did not take any action on the complaint and was spurred into action only after the Habeas Corpus petition dated 15th November, 2017 was filed in the Court; (ii) the petitioner did not act swiftly on the complaint, though received prior to his joining as SHO of the concerned Police Station but pending at the time when he joined; (iii) the Status Report dated 20th November, 2017 filed by the petitioner in the Court was not in conformity with the facts; and, (iv) such acts on the part of the petitioner amounted to gross miss-conduct, carelessness, negligence and dereliction in the discharge of official duties.
7. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the finding of the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner having mis-represented facts in the status report filed in the Habeas Corpus petition, is contrary to the documents on record.
8. We have however enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, how in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India we can act as an Appellate Court sitting over the decision of the Disciplinary Authority on merits and whether not our jurisdiction is confined to interfere in disciplinary matters only if there has been any error of procedure, violation of the principles of natural justice or the decision arrived at so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at that conclusion as held in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao, (1975) 2 SCC 557, Union of India Vs. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463, Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759, R.S. Saini Vs. State of Punjab, (1999) 8 SCC 90, Ashok Kumar Vs. Sita Ram, (2001) 4 SCC 478, Registrar General, High Court of Judicature of Madras Vs. K. Muthukumarasamy, (2014) 16 SCC 555, Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force Vs. Rajendra Kumar Dubey, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 954 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Hem Singh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 886.
9. Counsel for the petitioner then contends that CAT, though exercising same powers as were earlier exercised by the High Courts prior to coming into force of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 19
