Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1290
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R. N. Singh, Judicial Member, Rajinder Kashyap, Administrative Member
Babu Lal – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police – Respondent
O.A. No. 2946/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj
For the Respondents: Ms. Ittashree, Mr. Ramjan Khan
Judicial review quashes perverse disciplinary findings lacking evidence of negligence in impersonation detection.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - S.19 - Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 - Disciplinary proceedings - Scope of judicial review - Tribunal cannot re-appreciate evidence or act as appellate authority but can interfere if findings perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from non-application of mind - Finding of negligence without specific evidence or identification of violated procedure unsustainable - No expert analysis or biometric evidence to prove impersonation - Operational constraints like time pressure and lack of equipment considered - Impugned orders quashed; suspension treated as duty period; consequential benefits granted. (Paras 7, 11-16, 22-23)
(B) Departmental enquiry - Disciplinary Authority must independently apply mind and address contradictions in inquiry report - Non-speaking appellate order defeats purpose of appeal - Principles from B.C. Chaturvedi, Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, SBI v. Ajay Kumar Srivastava laid down limits on judicial interference. (Paras 18-19, 7.1-7.4)
Facts of the case:
Applicant, Head Constable posted as Immigration Officer at IGI Airport, granted clearance to passenger on 29/30.06.2018 alleged to be impersonating; Inquiry Officer found no mala fide but negligence proved; Disciplinary Authority forfeited one year service and treated suspension as not on duty; appeal rejected by non-speaking order.
Findings of Court:
Disciplinary and appellate orders perverse, lacking evidence; negligence finding unreasoned; operational realities acknowledged but ignored.
Issues: Whether charge of impersonation/negligence proved; sustainability of disciplinary findings; perversity or non-application of mind in orders.
Ratio Decidendi: Judicial review limited but permits quashing perverse findings unsupported by evidence; negligence requires identifiable breach, not mere ipse dixit; authorities must address representations meaningfully.
Result: Original Application allowed; impugned orders quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of disciplinary proceedings and negligence finding (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. applicant's contentions on lack of evidence (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. respondents' defence of proved negligence (Para 4) |
| 4. limits of judicial review in disciplinary matters (Para 6 , 7 , 20) |
| 5. perversity in negligence finding lacking evidence (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. quashing orders and granting reliefs (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A): -
The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, by the applicant assailing the disciplinary action taken against him pursuant to a summary of allegations dated 04.09.2019, culminating in the impugned punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The applicant contends that the impugned orders are vitiated by non-application of mind, perversity, and are contrary to the evidence on record, particularly the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, who substantially exonerated the applicant of the charge of misconduct. By way of the present O.A., the applicant, in Para 8 of the O.A., has prayed for the following reliefs: -
“(i) To quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 18.11.2021 (A-1), Order dated 09.04.2021 (A-2), D.E. Order dated 26.08.2019 (A-3),, Enquiry Report (A-4) and direct the respondents to treat the suspension period as spent on duty and remove the name of applicant from the secret list of persons of DI.
(ii) To declare the action of respondents in initiating departmental enquiry against the applicant vide impugned order dated 26.08.2019 and imposing penalty of forfeiture of one year approved service permanently as illegal and issue appropriate directions for releasing all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and promotion to the post of ASI from the date of promotion of juniors.
(iii) To allow the O.A. with costs.
(iv) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. BRIEF FACTS
2.1 The applicant was appointed as Constable in Delhi Police in the year 1993 and got promotion as Head Constable. The applicant was working as an Immigration Officer and was discharging duties relating to grant of immigration clearance to passengers.
2.2 A show cause notice for censure was served upon the applicant, however the same was withdrawn vide order dated 25.07.2019 and the applicant was placed under suspension w.e.f. 25.07.2019 without disclosing reasons and after one month, he was subjected to disciplinary action on the same allegations on which he was issued Censure Notice. The disciplinary action was initiated vide order dated 26.08.2019 (Annexure-A/3) alleging that in the night intervening 29/30.06.2018, he granted departure clearance to a person allegedly impersonating as one Aknam Choedak on Travel Document No. Q0301574.
2.3 The allegation proceeded on the premise that the person who travelled on the said document was not the genuine holder thereof and that the applicant failed to detect the alleged impersonation.
2.4 Although, the said allegations were factually incorrect, still the applicant was served summary of allegations dated 04.09.2019 (Annexure-A/5). A departmental inquiry was conducted. In support of said summary of allegation, the prosecution examined six prosecution witnesses (PWs). However, their statements were misinterpreted and charges were framed vide order dated 26.02.2020 (Annexure-A/6) Thereafter, the applicant was afforded full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and also to lead defence evidence. He thereafter submitted a written defence statement (Annexure-A/7). After receiving the aforesaid Written Statement and upon conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 01.02.2021 (Annexure-A/8), wherein it was categorically recorded that:-
“It is worth co
