$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 23.07.2024 + W.P.(C) 1559/2021 MANMEET POKHRIYAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra, Mr. Nikunj Arora, Mr. Amrit Kaul, Mr. Prahil Sharma & Mr.

Arjun Panular, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal with Ms. Nikita Goyal, Advs.

SI Shiv Kumar Singh.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

J U D G M E N T

REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 16.11.2020 passed by the respondents whereby he has been dismissed from service on the basis of a ‘disagreement note’ issued to him on 01.02.2017, of which also quashing is sought.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was exonerated not only in the departmental inquiry held against him on two Charges as set out in the dismissal order but was also acquitted after a full Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 1559/2021 Page 1 of 6 fledged trial by the CBI Court in respect of the same incident which forms subject matter of the Articles of Charge against him. However, the disciplinary authority, while disagreeing with the finding of the inquiry officer, has come to a conclusion that the charges against the petitioner were duly proved and has consequently, issued a note dated 01.02.2017 which, though titled as a disagreement note is, in fact, conclusive in nature. By placing reliance on a decision of this Court in Sunil Kumar vs. UOI: 2018 SCC Online Del 6433, he submits that the disagreement note and the consequential dismissal order are liable to be set aside on this ground alone. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed by directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service w.e.f. 24.11.2020 with all consequential benefits.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned orders and submits that merely because the disciplinary authority after examining the evidence led in the departmental inquiry, opined that the charges against the petitioner were proved, cannot imply that the said conclusion was a final conclusion and not tentative. The very fact that the petitioner was given a show cause notice to explain his stand before any final order was passed against him, in itself shows that the disagreement note was only tentative in nature. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.

4. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we find that the parties are ad idem that the petitioner was exonerated in the departmental inquiry as also in the criminal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 1559/2021 Page 2 of 6 case by the CBI Court. It is only on the basis of the impugned disagreement note dated 01.02.2017 that the petitioner has been dismissed from service vide order dated 16.11.2020. Taking into account that it is the petitioner’s plea that this disagreement note that forms the basis of the dismissal order was contrary to the settled legal position, we may refer to the relevant extracts of the disagreement note, which read as under:

“The Inquiry Officer while evaluating the evidences has ignored the above direct and circumstantial evidence and relied upon the defence statement and defence brief. Therefore, the report of Inquiry Officer that the charge levelled against Shri Manmeet Pokhriyal, Dy. Commandant "STANDS NOT PROVED" not acceptable due to the reasons as enumerated above. On the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence available in the DE proceedings, the report of IO in the DE against Shri Manmeet Pokhriyal, Dy. Commandant that the charges framed against him at Artic1e-1 and II as not proved, has been disagreed upon and the Disciplinary Authority has held the charges at Article-I & II framed against Shri Manmeet Pokhriyal, Dy. Commandant