Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Adv v. GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ORS

Judgment

1. This writ petition assails judgment dated 10 October 2018, Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 10894/2019 and connected matter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:03.02.2025 12:46:27 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 2910/2013.

2. The OA filed before the Tribunal emanated out of disciplinary proceedings instituted against the petitioner by order dated 26 December 2011, under Rule 16 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. We do not deem it necessary to enter into the allegations in the charge sheet, as the Tribunal has, in our view, proceeded on a fundamentally erroneous understanding of the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings. Paras 11, 13 and 14 of the impugned judgment read thus: “11. The scope of judicial review in the matter of DE proceedings is highly limited. Judicial review is normally resorted to only in following circumstances: (a) Principles of natural justice have not been followed in the conduct of DE proceedings, (b) Incompetent authorities have issued memorandum and passed the penalty orders, the charge (c) The penalty orders have been passed in violation of relevant laws/rules; and (d) The punishment inflicted is disproportionate to the offence committed. *****

13. In the instant case, we find that the enquiry has been conducted as per the prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice have been observed at every stage of the enquiry. The EO has examined as many as 6 PWs and 4 DWs. He has also evaluated the evidence adduced by them. The findings of the EO are based primarily on the CCTV footage, which cannot be controverted by anyone. The punishment of “withholding of next increment for a period of four year permanently” inflicted upon the applicant also does not appear to be disproportionate to the charge leveled against 1 “the Tribunal”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 10894/2019 and connected matter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:03.02.2025 12:46:27 him. Furthermore, the Tribunal is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence adduced in the enquiry proceedings.

14. In view of the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, we do not find any flaw in the impugned orders. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed with no order as to costs.”

3. Clearly, the Tribunal has proceeded on the premise that it has no jurisdiction to examine the merits of the matter or enter into the evidentiary thicket. It has treated its jurisdiction as restricted to the aspect of whether principles of natural justice, rules and regulations have been followed.

5. That, we are afraid, is not the correct legal position. The Supreme Court has, in State of Rajasthan v Heem Singh2 and Pravin Kumar v UOI3, thus delineated the scope of judicial review and disciplinary proceedings: Heem Singh “37. In exercising judicial review in disciplinary matters, there are two ends of the spectrum. The first embodies a rule of restraint. The second defines when interference is permissible. The rule of restraint constricts the ambit of judicial review. This is for a valid reason. The determination of whether a misconduct has been committed lies primarily within the domain of the disciplinary authority. The Judge does not assume the mantle of the disciplinary authority. Nor does the Judge wear the hat of an employer. Deference to a finding of fact by the disciplinary authority is a recognition of the idea that it is the employer who is responsible for the efficient conduct of their service. Disciplinary enquiries have to abide by the rules of natural justice. But they are not governed by strict rules of evidence which apply to judicial