Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6253
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, J, Dr. Sumeet Jerath, A
Mr. Pradeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
Government of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
OA No.2068/2023 | OA No.1801/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms Jasvinder Kaur
For the Respondents: Mr.K.M. Singh
Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings confirms that courts do not re-assess evidence but ensure fair treatment and adherence to procedural correctness.
Headnote:(A) Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 - Disciplinary proceedings initiated against police personnel for departing from duty without permission - Inquiry findings supported by evidence, leading to appropriate disciplinary action - The court reaffirmed that judicial review does not entail reappraising evidence or conclusions of a properly conducted inquiry. (Paras 22, 24)
(B) Disciplinary Inquiry - Validity of the inquiry proceedings - The court reiterated the principle that departmental proceedings do not constitute a re-assessment of evidence and the punishment should be proportionate to the misconduct proved. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The applicants were suspended after leaving duty without permission and were later subjected to disciplinary inquiry. The findings of the inquiry confirmed that the applicants had left their post, leading to a punishment based on established misconduct.
Findings of Court:
The proceedings were found to be conducted fairly, and the punishment assigned was deemed appropriate based on the misconduct established.
Issues: The primary issue concerned whether the applicants were adequately informed and whether the disciplinary actions taken were founded on substantive evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that procedural fairness was maintained throughout the inquiry, aligning with established legal principles emphasizing the integrity of departmental disciplinary processes.
Result: OA dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. course of disciplinary action following the applicants' absence from duty. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. evaluation of evidence against the applicants and conclusions drawn. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. judicial review focuses on procedural compliance over evidential reassessment. (Para 22 , 24) |
ORDER
Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member(J)
A joint departmental inquiry was conducted against both applicants. The applicants have filed two separate Original Applications challenging the same. Arguments in both the cases were heard together and with the consent of the parties, both Original Applications are being decided by this common order.
2. The applicant in OA 2068/2022 is serving as Constable in Delhi Police. He was posted at Police Station, Mangolpuri. On 03.09.2018, he along with ASI Nirmal Singh (applicant of OA 1801/2022) left Delhi to go to Himachal Pradesh. Purportedly both applicants left due to the sudden illness of the father of ASI Nirmal Singh. They were in a taxi when they reached near Ambala Chandigarh Highway at Zirakpur. The taxi was stopped at a police post and checked by local police. At the post, the SHO Shri Pawan Kumar of Police Station, Zirakpur, Mohali was present. There were exchange of hot words between the applicants and the SHO. The applicants were then taken by the SHO to the Police Station, Zirakpur.
3. On 05.09.2018, applicants returned to Delhi and both were placed under suspension. On 12.11.2018, the competent authority ordered the departmental inquiry.
4. Suspension of the applicants was revoked on 03.12.2018. On 23.04.2019, the DE was withdrawn citing administrative reasons. On 29.04.2019, a fresh Summary of Allegations (SOA) was served on the applicants. On 18.09.2018, the Inquiry Officer submitted his findings.
5. On 18.11.2020, the Disciplinary Authority awarded the punishment of forfeiture of one year of approved service permanently entailing a proportionate reduction in the pay of the applicant. The applicants were also brought on the secret list of DI for 3 years w.e.f.18.11.2020. The appeal of the applicants was rejected by the Appellate Authority. Hence, the present OAs have been filed seeking the following relief(s):-
OA No.2068/2022 (Const. Pradeep Singh)
1) To quash and set aside the impugned findings communicated vide O/O dated 18.09.2019 (Annexure A-1); Order dated 18.11.2020 issued by the Disciplinary Authority (Annexure A-2) and Order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority (Annexure A-3);
2) Direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension as spent on duty and pay arrears of pay and allowances for the said period of suspension;
3) Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
OA No.1801/2024 (ASI Nirmal Singh)
1) To quash and set aside the impugned FINDINGS communicated vide O/0 dated 18/09/2019 (Annexure A-1); Order dated 18/11/2020 issued by the Disciplinary Authority (Annexure A-2) and Order dated 21/06/2021 passed by the Appellate Authority (Annexure A- 3);
2) To quash and set aside Order dated 09/03/2021(Annexure A-4) whereby the name of the Applicant has been kept in Secret List of DI for 3 years.
3) Direct the Respondents to pay arrears of pay and allowances for the period of suspension and that period be treated as spent on duty for all intent and purposes.
4) Direct the respondents to consider and allow MACP benefits to the applicant on completion of 30 years of service which fell due in 2022;
5) Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
6. Counsel for the applicants opened her arguments, admitting that the applicants did leave their duty at Delhi for Himachal and were at Zirakpur when the taxi in which they were travelling was stopped for checking. Giving a brief background she stated that the father of the applicant, ASI Nirmal Singh had gone on a religious teerth yatra. On his way there, he had fallen ill. On receiving a piece of telephonic informatio
