Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13592

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Manish Garg, J, Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, A
Shri Raj Veer Singh – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Police – Respondent
O.A. No. 1468/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Manjeet Singh Reen
For the Respondents: Ms. Seema Grover

Disciplinary proceedings must respect natural justice principles, including the right to a personal hearing and proper consideration of the defense, failing which decisions are liable to be quashed.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Departmental proceedings - Disciplinary action against applicant due to poor supervision relating to public drinking incident - Show Cause Notice issued, and punishment of censure was upheld by the Appellate Authority - The court found proceedings violated principles of natural justice as the applicant was not given an opportunity for a personal hearing nor were the specific points raised by him considered - Thus, quashing of the orders was warranted. (Paras 11, 14, 15)

(B) Principles of natural justice - Right to be heard and to have reasons recorded for decisions affecting one's rights - Violation of statutory rules in awarding punishment without appropriate notice and consideration of the applicant's replies. (Paras 8, 12, 14)

Facts of the case:
The applicant was a police inspector who received a Show Cause Notice for poor supervision regarding public drinking incidents linked to a reported firing incident. The disciplinary authority confirmed punishment without addressing key points made by the applicant and subsequent appeals were rejected without adequate reasoning.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that due process was not followed in the disciplinary proceedings, highlighting failures to adhere to principles of natural justice, such as the right to a personal hearing and consideration of defense submissions.

Issues: Whether the orders passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities were in accordance with natural justice and statutory provisions?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court outlined that the disciplinary authority must follow fair procedures, including giving the accused an opportunity for personal hearing and ensuring all relevant arguments are considered; failure to do so undermines the authority of such decisions.

Result: The application is allowed, compelling the quashing of the impugned orders and restoration of benefits to the applicant.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):

The instant OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

“8.1.That this Honourable Tribunal may graciously be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 01.05.2024(ΑΝNEXURE A-1), order dated 13.7.2024(ANNEXURE A-2), and Appellate Authority order 29.3.2025 (ANNEXURE A-3), with all the consequential benefits.

8.2. That this Honourable Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow the present Original Application and direct the Respondents to restore back the pay of the applicant in it's original grade with all consequential benefits.

8.3. That this Honourable Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to produce all relevant records before this Hon'ble Tribunal in the interest of justice.

8.4. That any other or further relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicants.”

FACTS OF THE CASE AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT

2. The applicant was initially appointed as Sub-Inspector through Staff Selection Commission, Delhi in the year 1994. Thereafter, the applicant was promoted as Inspector in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4800/-.

2.1. On 24.04.2024, a PCR call was received vide DD Nos. 132 A and 133 A at Police Station Moti Nagar, in which the call had mentioned regarding an incident of firing that allegedly took place at Dhauli Pyau. Thereafter, the respondents issued a Show-Cause Notice dated 01.05.2024 to the applicant to show cause as to why a penalty of Censure should not be awarded to him. The applicant submitted his detailed representation against the Show Cause Notice (Annexure A-4

2.2. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, according to the applicant without considering the reply vide order dated 13.07.2024 (Annexure A-2) confirmed the aforesaid punishment of Censure upon the applicant without dealing with the points raised by the applicant as not even a single point as raised in the reply is discussed in the said punishment order and no reasons have been recorded as to why the submission of the applicant could not be found worth consideration.

2.3. Being aggrieved, the applicant has submitted his appeal dated 11.08.2024 (Annexure A-5) against the aforesaid order of the disciplinary authority, however, according to the applicant, the appellate authority without considering the same vide order dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure A-3) rejected the same. Hence, this OA.

3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their reply affidavit opposing the claim of the applicant and the applicant has also filed his rejoinder.

ARGUMENTS OF APPLICANT’S COUNSEL

4. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the respondents issued a Show Cause Notice dated 01.05.2024 (Annexure A-1) on the allegation poor supervision of SHO/Vikaspuri, who failed to take action against such activity in his area. It has been observed that people consume liquor in public place and then after getting high, indulge into altercation and brawl. The incident of 24.04.2024 night that took near PVR Vikaspuri was also an example of this nuisance and thus there was lackadaisical approach on the part of the applicant.

4.1 Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant submitted his detailed representation against the Show Cause Notice dated 01.05.2024 giving reasons that he has been taking stringent and robust action against public drinking (action u/s 40A, persons arrested) and submitted the details of arrested persons during the year of 2023 and 2024 in his detailed reply. However, the Disciplinary authority without considering the reply of the applicant, vide their order dated 13.07.2024 confirmed the punishment of Censure upon the applicant without dealing with the points raised by the applicant.

4.2 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 01.05

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13592

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALMr. Manish Garg, J, Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, AShri Raj Veer Singh – AppellantVersusDelhi Police – RespondentO.A. No. 1468/2025

Disciplinary proceedings must respect natural justice principles, including the right to a personal hearing and proper consideration of the defense, failing which decisions are liable to be quashed.

Cases Referred (4)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Manish Garg, J, Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, A
Shri Raj Veer Singh – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Police – Respondent
O.A. No. 1468/2025