Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA, Madhu Jain, JJ
ROHTAS SINGH – Appellant
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(C) 6161/2007
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N.S. Dalal, Nidhi Dalal, Alok Kumar, Rachana Dalal, Karan Mann
For the Respondents: Piyush Gaur
Disciplinary proceedings upheld due to procedural integrity and substantial evidence despite claims of procedural lapses, reinforcing adherence to natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 - Rule 15(3) - Writ Petition challenging a penalty order imposed for dereliction of duty - The petitioner, functioning as Additional SHO, was penalized for inaction leading to a tragic incident. The Inquiry Officer's reliance on Preliminary Enquiry was scrutinized under the applicable rules and judicial precedents - The Supreme Court emphasizes adherence to principles of natural justice - Court affirms that the petitioner failed to act on prior complaints regarding illicit liquor leading to a disaster and observes procedural integrity in departmental proceedings. (Paras 30, 34, 36)
(B) Natural Justice - The court reinforced the necessity of fair procedure in disciplinary matters, highlighting insignificance of procedural lapse in context where due process was substantially followed. (Paras 30, 34)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner held the position of Additional SHO during significant illicit liquor incidents. Charges rose from failure to act on prior warnings, with his role taken into account during departmental procedures leading to a penalty.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's dismissal of the petition, agreeing that proper procedure had been followed, affirming the penalty based on substantiated charges.
Issues: The primary legal inquiries revolved around adherence to procedural rules in disciplinary actions and whether the petitioner was unfairly treated in the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded there was no breach of natural justice as the petitioner received an ample opportunity to defend against the charges with evidentiary support considered.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of tribunal's penalty decision. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. initial proceedings leading to departmental inquiry. (Para 4 , 5 , 20) |
| 3. petitioner's claims of procedural deficiencies in the inquiry. (Para 14 , 19 , 23) |
| 4. court's evaluation of procedural fairness in the inquiry. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34) |
| 5. final ruling and upholding of tribunal's decision. (Para 33) |
FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was working as Additional SHO, P.S. Saraswati Vihar, North West District, Delhi during the period 02.11.1994 to 21.03.1997. At that time, one Sh. H.S. Bhardwaj was functioning as the regular SHO of Police Station. During this period, the petitioner had also officiated as SHO of PS Saraswati Vihar from 18.12.1996 to 16.02.1997.
3. The Police Headquarters, on 14.11.1994, had issued a Circular regarding duties and responsibilities of Additional SHOs in Police Station / Districts. Clause 1 of Circular provided as follows:-
“It is suggested that the SHO should be responsible for all law and order arrangements in the PS and the additional SHO should be called only for dealing with a grave emergency with the specific approval of the district DCP.”
4. The petitioner, who was functioning as Additional SHO, PS Saraswati Vihar, was issued a show cause notice of censure on 29.01.1997, alleging negligence and dereliction in discharge of duties, along with Head Constable and Constables. At that time the petitioner was functioning as Addl. SHO of PS Saraswati Vihar with Shri H.S. Bhardwaj, who was functioning as a regular SHO PS Saraswati Vihar. However, the censure notice issued to Shri Bhardwaj was withdrawn by the Competent Authority on 13.03.1997. The petitioner was subsequently transferred from the said Police Station, on 21.03.1997.
5. On 24/25.03.1997, a tragic incident occurred within the jurisdiction of P.S. Saraswati Vihar, wherein seven persons lost their lives after consuming illicit liquor.
6. A preliminary enquiry was ordered by DCP, North West District on 01.04.1997, to be conducted by Additional DCP, North West District, Sh. Uday Sahay.
7. The petitioner did not participate in the aforesaid enquiry, nor was he permitted to cross-examine the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer, in his preliminary enquiry report dated 21.04.1997, substantiated the charges against the police officials, including the petitioner.
8. Pursuant to the preliminary Enquiry, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and other police officers. A summary of allegations was issued to the petitioner and other police officers and, vide a report dated 09.02.1999, the enquiry officer held the charges against the petitioner to be proved.
9. The enquiry report was challenged by the petitioner by making a representation before the Disciplinary Authority, which, vide order dated 02.06.2000, imposed a penalty of withholding of his next increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect and that his suspension period to be not treated as spent on duty. The Appellate Authority also rejected the appeal of the petitioner, vide order dated 10.07.2003.
10. The petitioner then approached the learned Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 1768/2004, challenging the penalty as well as appellate authority order. The said OA was disposed of vide Order dated 05.07.2005, remanding the matter back to the Appellate Authority, holding as under:
“ 2. In all fairness to the parties counsel, it must be stated that there were other pleas raised and replied to; pertaining to which this Tribunal is not expressing any opinion at this stage.
xxx
8. What has happened in the present case is that the appellate authority inadvertently took into consideration the report of the preliminary enquiry. That is not permissible in law. Therefore we, for the present, quash the order passed by the appellate authority and direct that a fresh order in accordance with law may be passed preferably within four mo
