Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1562
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R.N. Singh, J, Rajinder Kashyap, A
Aditya – Appellant
Versus
Comm. Of Police – Respondent
O.A./4300/2015
Mr. Anil Singal, Mr. A K Mishra
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice and require sufficient evidence to support charges; failure to do so renders the proceedings invalid.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Disciplinary proceedings - The applicant challenged the initiation of disciplinary enquiry and subsequent punishment for alleged misconduct during duty as a Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police - The enquiry was found to lack evidence and violate principles of natural justice. (Paras 1-28)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - The enquiry officer failed to conduct an impartial inquiry, leading to a perverse conclusion without adequate evidence. (Paras 26-27)
(C) Burden of Proof - Charges of misconduct must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not merely on preponderance of probabilities. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a Constable (Driver), was accused of misbehavior and extortion during a police duty incident involving a complainant under the influence of alcohol. The enquiry found him guilty based on insufficient evidence. (Paras 3-10)
Findings of Court:
The court found the disciplinary proceedings flawed, lacking evidence and violating the applicant's rights, leading to the quashing of the punishment order. (Paras 26-28)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the disciplinary enquiry, the sufficiency of evidence, and adherence to principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the enquiry was biased and lacked evidence, thus the punishment was quashed.
Result: The disciplinary punishment was set aside, and the applicant was to be reinstated with all benefits.
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A): -
By way of the present O.A. filed u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, the applicant, in Para 8 of the OA, has prayed for the following reliefs: -
“1. To quash and set aside the impugned Order initiating DE dt. 20.9.2011, Findings, Order of punishment dt. 25.7.2013 and Appellate order dt. 28.1.2015
2. To direct the respondents to restore to the applicant his original service and pay with all consequential benefits including promotion/seniority and arrears of pay.
3. To Award cost of the proceedings in favour of the applicant and pass such other and further orders as deemed it and proper in the circumstances of the case to meets the ends of justice.”
2. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit opposing the claim of the applicant and have prayed for dismissal of the present Original Application.
3. The brief facts of the present case are that the applicant is working as Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police. The applicant submits that he is duty bound to drive the PCR Van as per the instructions of I/C PCR Van as per the charter of duties for the post of Constable (Driver). He has no authority to interfere in the duties of other staff. It is further stated that the applicant along with ASI Sohan Lal I/C PCR Van and Constable Ravinder was posted at PCR Van V-32 during the intervening night 30/31.07.2011. At about 3:30 AM, I/C ASI Sohan Lal found one- person (name known later on) Sh. Abhishek Jaiswal outside the Hotel Shangrila under the influence of liquor. He further adds that he was asked to stop the PCR Van by Sohan Lal, ASI. The applicant stopped the PCR Van. ASI Sohan Lal and Constable Ravinder brought Sh. Abhishek Jaiswal into PCR Van and asked the applicant to take the PCR Van to Hotel Eros, Janpath, where they dropped Sh. Abhishek Jaiswal. The applicant contends that he did not know more than mentioned above.
4. It is also mentioned that Preliminary Enquiry was conducted by Insp. Pradeep Singh in which it was alleged that the applicant misbehaved with Sh. Abhishek Jaiswal without specifying the acts of misbehavior and Constable Ravinder took Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand) from his pocket.
5. On the basis of the said Preliminary Enquiry Report, a Disciplinary Enquiry was initiated vide order dated 20.09.2011 (Annexure-A/1) against the applicant along with ASI Sohan Lal and Constable Ravinder. However, there was no allegation of any misbehavior by the applicant with Sh. Abhishek Jaiswal in thesummary of allegations. On denial of charges, a detailed enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer who examined 11 PWs. Thereafter, the enquiry officer framed charges against the applicant on the same set of allegations as mentioned in summary of allegations. It is submitted that Enquiry Officer illegally and arbitrarily framed charges against the applicant though there was neither any material nor any evidence to frame the charges against the applicant, which shows total non- application of mind on the part of the E.O. Thereafter, the applicant submitted his defense statement to the E.O. and requested for exoneration from the charges. The applicant further contends that the enquiry officer with malafide intention submitted his Findings (Annexure-A/2) to the Disciplinary Authority concluding therein that the charges leveled against the applicant stand proved without specifying the role played by the applicant. It is further contended that the finding of the E.O. are perverse in nature and is based on No-Evidence and the applicant has been held guilty on surmises and conjectures without applying his mind to the defense statement of the applicant and illegality proved the charges against him.
6. The Disciplinary Authority agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) to the applicant to make representation against the findings of the enquiry officer. In reply to the SCN, the applicant submitted a detailed representation
