Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Sunil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 6816/2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vinod Dahiya, Khushi Dahiya, Shreya Garg, Dhruv Khurana, Bhaskar Dongwal
For the Respondents: Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, Usha Jamnal, Prajna Pandita, Nyasa Sharma, B Pradhan, Sanjay Kumar, Kamal Singh, Manju Nath

Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited to examining procedural fairness and whether the findings are based on evidence. Courts will not substitute their judgment for the disciplinary authority's decision on the proportionality of a penalty if the procedure was fair and the findings are not perverse.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Scope of Judicial Review - Penalty imposed - Appellate court restricted to determining whether rules of natural justice were followed, whether findings were based on evidence, whether procedural rules were observed, and whether findings suffer from perversity - Interference only if the decision-making process is tainted by illegality or if the penalty is grossly disproportionate. (Paras 11, 12)

(B) Departmental Enquiry - Revisional Authority - Re-examination of Penalty - Requirement for administrative bodies to provide reasoned justification when maintaining severe sanctions following a remand - Court will not re-appreciate evidence or substitute its view for that of the disciplinary authority when the enquiry follows established procedure and the findings remain consistent with official records. (Paras 9, 10, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a member of a security-oriented force, was removed from service following an enquiry regarding theft of property at the assigned duty post. The petitioner alleged that unidentified persons had tied him up, which was later found to be a concocted story to hide negligence and unauthorized use of mobile devices during duty hours. Following a previous judicial order to reconsider the proportionality of the penalty, the revisional authority maintained the punishment of removal, asserting that the individual's actions were inconsistent with the professional standards required in an armed force unit.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the revisional authority provided a well-reasoned, detailed order addressing the gravity of the misconduct. It held that the disciplinary process complied with the principles of natural justice and that the findings were supported by sufficient evidence on record, including digital logs and admissions made during the preliminary enquiry.

Issues: The central issues concerned whether the penalty of removal was disproportionate to the proven misconduct and whether the administrative body correctly exercised its discretion upon remand when upholding the initial disciplinary sanction.

Ratio Decidendi: In matters of service discipline, judicial review is limited to the decision-making process rather than the merits of the evidence. When a disciplinary authority provides a reasoned, evidence-based justification for a severe penalty—particularly in instances involving untruthful conduct within an armed force—the court will not substitute its own view for that of the disciplinary authority unless a clear case of perversity or procedural violation is established.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background and procedural history of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. parties' arguments regarding disciplinary process and penalty. (Para 6 , 7)
3. court confirms adequacy of disciplinary authority's reconsidered decision. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)

V. KAMESWAR RAO , J. (ORAL)

1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:

“i. declare the Findings dated 13.07.2013 (at ANN P 1), impugned final Order dated 31.10.2013 (at ANN P 2), impugned appellate order dated 26.12.2013 (at ANN P-3), impugned order dated 23.01.2015 rejecting Revision Petition (at ANN P-4) and impugned Order dated 17.03.2020 (at ANN P-5) passes by respondent no.2 as unlawful and hence to quash and set aside the same.

ii. direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits including pay and allowances for the period of removal from service till joining the force, seniority, promotions and other all benefits.

iii. any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. The petitioner was recruited on the post constable/GD on 28.09.2011 in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on compassionate grounds due to the death of his father while on duty in the same department. It is his case that on 08.06.2013 while posted in Kustaur Dhanbad, the petitioner was detailed for duty from 2100 hours i.e. 09:00 PM to 05:00 AM in the night intervening 08.06.2013 and 09.06.2013 in the area of Bhalgoda office premises while Head Constable Ved Pal [petitioner in W.P.(C) 6895/2022] was at Railway sliding. The petitioner was performing his duty when at about 03:30 AM, 12 to 14 unknown armed persons, according to the petitioner apprehended him and tied him to a tree at some distance with a rope and gagged him.

3. According to him, the unidentified persons broke seals of locks of 8 rooms out of 9 rooms between 03:30 AM to 04:15 AM. He further states that General Diary entry No. 908 dated 09.06.2013 at 05:25 AM, the entry recorded that locks had been broken and the petitioner was tied to the tree by thieves while HC Vedpal [Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6895/2022] was on duty. It is stated that on the same day Inspector B. N. Patra gave a written complaint about the said incident to the Police Post Burra Garh O.P incharge in P.S Jharia and also the area manager (Admn.) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. An FIR No.241 dated 09.06.2013 under Section 461/382 Indian Penal Code, was registered.

4. It was thereafter, that a preliminary enquiry was conducted and statements of the Officials were recorded on 09.06.2013 and 10.06.2013. Additionally, on 26.06.2013, the area manager/Admn. of the said unit sent a list of articles stolen by the thieves during the night intervening between 08.06.2013 and 09.06.2013. After which a second preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Commandant and departmental proceedings were initiated against both the petitioners. The departmental enquiry concluded with the disciplinary authority ordering that the petitioner be removed from service.

5. The petitioner has challenged the findings of the enquiry report dated 13.07.2013; the final orders of penalty dated 31.10.2013, the findings of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner dated 26.12.2013; the findings of the authority rejecting the revision petition of the petitioner dated 23.01.2015 and the order dated 17.03.2020 pursuant to the directions of this Court on 31.01.2020

6. Mr. Vinod Dahiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strongly contended that there are discrepancies in the disciplinary enquiry in as much as the same was conducted with a premeditated mind to hold the petitioner guilty of the misconduct. He further submitted that certain material witnesses had not been examined. The disciplinary enquiry suffers from defects.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIV. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJSunil Kumar – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentW.P.(C) 6816/2022

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Sunil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 6816/2022