The scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings is limited to severe procedural lapses or disproportionate punishments, maintaining that disciplinary actions are distinct from criminal charges.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Amit Bansal, J. The petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Inspector with the respondent Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in the year 2017. An incident occurred, on 7th October, 2017 while the petitioner was posted at the Metro Station at Shahdara involving the petitioner and one metro commuter, Lakshya Beriwal which resulted in a charge sheet being issued against the petitioner under Rule 36 of CISF Rules. The petitioner was charged with following offence:

"On 07.10.2017, Force No. 120201677 Sub Inspr/Exe Jitendra Kumar, Red Line, CISF Unit, DMRC, Delhi was posted at Shahdara Metro Station in the first shift from 0700 to 1400 PM in the capacity of shift incharge. During the bag scanning of one Sh. Lakshya Beriwal at about 0845 AM, argued with the said passenger and along with the Force No. 014511196 Guard/GD Vijay Kumar, the said passenger was taken to the CCTV room where the said passenger was assaulted whereas, strict orders have already been issued by the administration that in any circumstances, no passenger is required to be taken to the CCTV room but the force member has violated the above order and no information about incident has been given to any higher officer. During the duty, creating unnecessary dispute with metro passenger, to assault him, not conveying the information of the incident to any higher officer and not complying with the directions related to the duty, grave indiscipline, and violating the orders of the higher officer by the Force No. 120201677 Sub Inspr/Exe Jitendra Kumar shows tarnishing the image of the force. Hence, the charge"

2. This was followed by a departmental inquiry against the petitioner. The inquiry report was issued on 9th March, 2018 holding the petitioner guilty of the offence charged. Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 14th April, 2018 in terms of which the petitioner was held guilty of misconduct and the penalty of `reduction of pay by one stage for a period of 2 years with further direction' was imposed. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal against the aforesaid order dated 14th April, 2018 which was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 31st January, 2019. The petitioner preferred a statutory revision against the aforesaid appellate order, however the same was also dismissed by the respondents vide order dated 20th July, 2020.

3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the aforesaid three orders dated 14th April, 2018, 31st January, 2019 and 20th July, 2020.

4. The counsel for the petitioner contends that; (i) none of the prosecution witnesses gave any evidence against the petitioner that he had assaulted the passenger Mr. Lakshya Beriwal; (ii) this is a case of no evidence; (iii) Lakshya Beriwal had also given an apology letter to the petitioner in respect of his mis-behaviour with the petitioner; and (iv) even in the FIR which was registered against the petitioner by Lakshya Beriwal, he gave a statement that he does not wish to pursue the matter against the accused person and in light of the statement given by Lakshya Beriwal the offences were compounded and the petitioner was acquitted.

5. The counsel appearing on advance notice on behalf of the respondent controverts the above submissions. He relies upon the medical report in respect of Lakshya Beriwal as well as the photographs filed by the respondents to contend that the petitioner had in fact assaulted the said Mr. Lakshya Beriwal and had caused injuries. He further contends that in terms of the standard operative procedure (SOP) issued by the respondents, the petitioner could not have taken the Metro commuter to the CCTV room, instead the petitio