Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 299

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Vedpal – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 6895/2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vinod Dahiya, Khushi Dahiya, Shreya Garg, Dhruv Khurana, Bhaskar Dongwal
For the Respondents: T.P. Singh, AC B Pradhan, Sanjay Kumar, Kamal Singh

In judicial review of disciplinary matters, courts do not re-appreciate evidence or sit as appellate authorities. Interference is restricted to cases involving violation of natural justice, procedural irregularity, perversity, or where a punishment is found to be grossly disproportionate to the established misconduct.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Disciplinary Enquiry - Judicial Review - Scope of interference - Courts do not act as an appellate forum over findings of the disciplinary authority - Review is restricted to determining whether rules of natural justice were complied with, whether findings are based on evidence, whether statutory rules were observed, whether findings suffer from perversity, and whether the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct - Where evidence supports the finding of guilt and the disciplinary process follows established procedures, the court will not substitute its own view for that of the employer. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a member of a disciplined service, challenged the findings of a departmental enquiry and subsequent revisional orders that upheld the penalty of compulsory retirement. It was alleged that the petitioner, while on security duty, neglected to protect property and participated in creating a fabricated narrative regarding a theft incident. Following a previous court direction to the revisional authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment, the authority affirmed the penalty of compulsory retirement, citing the petitioner's lack of integrity and the gravity of the misconduct demonstrated during duty.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and that the charges were proved based on sufficient evidence, including admissions during the enquiry. The revisional authority provided a detailed, reasoned order upholding the penalty, noting the petitioner's failure in his professional duty. The court concluded that it cannot re-examine or re-appreciate the evidence already assessed by the disciplinary authority.

Issues: Whether the disciplinary enquiry suffered from procedural, legal, or evidentiary infirmities and whether the penalty of compulsory retirement was disproportionate to the proven misconduct.

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial interference in departmental enquiries is confined to verifying the legality and procedural fairness of the process. Since the disciplinary authority's findings were supported by evidence and the penalty imposed was not disproportionate given the breach of duty and lack of integrity, there exists no ground for judicial intervention.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background and departmental disciplinary proceedings overview. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. parties' contentions regarding procedural fairness and proportionality of punishment. (Para 6 , 7)
3. scope of remand regarding penalty and sufficiency of reasoned orders. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. limited judicial review of disciplinary enquires and penalty proportionality. (Para 11 , 12)
5. final order dismissing the writ petition. (Para 13)

V. KAMESWAR RAO , J. (ORAL)

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

“i. declare the findings dated 01.12.2013 (at ANN P-1), impugned final Order dated 06.01.2014 (at ANN P-2), impugned appellate Order dated 17.04.2014 (at ANN P-3), impugned order dated 04.03.2015 rejecting Revision Petition (at ANN P-4) and impugned Order dated 18.03.2020 (at ANN P-5) passed 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 of Constable/G.D. on 01.01.1987. He was promoted to the rank of Head Constable in December 2008.. It is his case that as per duty deployment register dated 07.06.2013 he was detailed for duty in the area of Bhalgoda Railway sliding W/Bridge during the night intervening 08.06.2013 and 09.06.2013. The petitioner was performing his duty when at about 03:30 AM, 12 to 14 unknown armed persons, apprehended Ct. Sunil Kumar and tied him to a tree at some distance with a rope and gagged him with a cloth.

3. 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. 0241 dated 09.06.2013 under Section 461/382 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 the petitioner. The departmental enquiry concluded with the disciplinary authority ordering the removal from service of Sunil Kumar and compulsory retirement of HC GD Vedpal being the petitioner herein.

5. The petitioner has challenged, the findings of the enquiry report dated 01.12.2013, the final orders of penalty dated 06.01.2014; 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 04.03.2015 and the order dated 18.03.2020 pursuant to the directions of this Court on 31.01.2020. The revisional authority in the impugned order has in paragraphs 6 and 7 has retained the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner by stating as under:

“06. AND WHEREAS, keeping in view of judgement order dated 31.01.2020 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi the case of No.874380833 Ex-HC/GD Ved Pal, formerly of CISF Unit BCCL Dhanbad has been re-examined. On perusal of the case files and evidences held with the case file, it is evident that during the course of enquiry the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved beyond doubt. It is revealed from the case file that he was deployed for 'C' shift duty at railway siding duty post of BCCL Kustore Bhalgora Area office in the intervening night of 8/9.06.2013. After completion of duty when the petitioner was returning to camp in the morning of 09-06-2013 at about 0530 hrs, he ca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 299

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIV. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJVedpal – AppellantVersusUnion Of India – RespondentW.P.(C) 6895/2022

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Vedpal – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 6895/2022