Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 13706
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Nand Kishor Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 16663/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nand Kishor Singh (In-person)
For the Respondents: Archana Gaur, Ridhima Gaur, Deepu Kumar
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is confined to assessing the decision-making process. Courts cannot re-examine evidence or act as an appellate authority to substitute findings unless the inquiry process is found to be arbitrary, perverse, or in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Judicial Review - Scope of interference - Court should not act as an appellate authority - Jurisdiction limited to examining the decision-making process. (Paras 18, 33)
(B) Service Law - Departmental Inquiry - Principles of Natural Justice - Requirement of providing adequate opportunity to defend and cross-examine witnesses - Mere dissatisfaction with the inquiry outcome does not constitute violation of natural justice. (Paras 17, 24)
(C) Service Law - Disciplinary Action - Misconduct - Unauthorized retention of official accommodation - Repeated disobedience of superior orders - Use of inappropriate language - Relevance of past record in determining the gravity of current misconduct. (Paras 39, 49)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the order of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority following charges of misconduct, including unauthorized retention of official accommodation, insubordination, use of threatening language in official communications, and a history of previous disciplinary penalties. The petitioner contended that the inquiry was biased, denied sufficient opportunity for defense, and that the penalty was disproportionate to the allegations.
Findings of Court:
The departmental inquiry followed prescribed procedural rules. The delinquent employee was granted sufficient opportunity to defend, examine records, and cross-examine witnesses. The conduct of the petitioner over several years demonstrated a persistent refusal to conform to the standards required of a member of a disciplined force, which, along with the proven charges, substantiated the decision.
Issues: Whether the departmental inquiry violated the principles of natural justice and whether the court should interfere with the findings and the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority through the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: Judicial review is strictly confined to analyzing the decision-making process to ensure procedural fairness. The court will not substitute its own view for that of the disciplinary authority or re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse, capricious, or arbitrary. A consistent pattern of persistent indiscipline, supported by preceding penalties, justifies the severity of the sanction imposed upon the employee.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's background and challenges to disciplinary proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 2. respondents' arguments on jurisdiction, procedure, and misconduct. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 3. court's analysis of territorial jurisdiction in service matters. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 4. assessment of inquiry report and fairness of disciplinary process. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 5. review of past conduct and justification for removal from service. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
“A. Issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent No. 2 with a direction for quashing the impugned order dated 03.11.2021 passed by the respondent No.5, and reinstating the petitioner in services with all the consequential benefits.
B. Issue an appropriate writ directing the respondents No. 2 to 5 to pay the cost to the petitioner.
C. Any other relief, order or direction this court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case also be issued in the favour of the petitioner, and against the respondents, in the interest of justice.”
2. The facts which can be gathered from the petition are as follows; The petitioner had joined CISF on 09.11.2000 as a Constable/Cook at Chittodgarh, Rajasthan and in the year 2006, the petitioner was appointed as Constable/Driver through the open recruitment to the post of Constable/Driver at Bhilai, Madhya Pradesh. It is his case that he provided services at different places as a Constable/Driver without Modified Assured Career Progression (“MACP”) Scheme, which according to him, was due to him since 2006.
3. As per the petitioner, who appears in person, he had submitted representations to the respondents time to time for seeking promotion and increment, however, the respondent nos. 2 to 5 had rejected his application and had awarded different nature of penalties to him. According to him, he was entitled for promotion since 2012 as per the DoPT Promotion Rules.
4. He stated that the respondent no. 5 had issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner on 15.12.2020, leveling 5 allegations against him. In this regard, he has drawn our attention to Annexure-A of the paper-book, which is a copy of the said charge-sheet. The charges in the said charge-sheet are in the nature of misconduct to the effect of not vacating government family accommodation despite specific orders, retaining family accommodation beyond the stipulated period; using inappropriate language in various applications to the senior authorities and refusing to occupy the accommodation allotted him as per his choice and not vacating the occupied premises beyond the permissible period and even after being awarded nine minor penalties refused to improve his conduct.
5. The petitioner stated that as far as charge no. I is concerned, the reason for him not to vacate the quarters by 30.07.2018 but on 12.10.2020, was due to the illness of his wife. Despite the appeals filed to the respondent no. 5 on two grounds primarily being the ill health of his wife and on the ground of education of his children, appeals were rejected. He stated that his wife suffers from Hepatitis-B, which is a chronic disease, which is why he could not vacate the premises.
6. The charge no. II against the petitioner was regarding the same government quarter wherein it was stated that significant time was spent by the higher authorities focusing on a single individual and thereby wasting the time and resources of the organisation amounting to a grave act of indiscipline, the same was answered by the petitioner stating that he was following the rules and procedures of his parent organisation and therefore, this charge was wrongly attributed to him.
7. As far as charge no. III is concerned regarding use of improper language, he h
