Recently, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed the limits of departmental disciplinary power, holding that punishment cannot stand when findings lack evidence or the charge does not show misconduct, cautioning that “an accident occurring in the course of duty cannot, by itself, be elevated to delinquency.”
Brief Fact:
The dispute traces back to the service career of Ex-Constable Arvind Kumar, who was dismissed from the Delhi Police on 03.09.1996 under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, following his alleged involvement in multiple criminal cases during 1994–1996. The most serious allegation involved an incident where a fellow constable allegedly grabbed his service weapon during an altercation over official telephone use, resulting in an accidental discharge and the colleague’s death.
Other cases against him included allegations of cheating and forgery, in which he was ultimately acquitted due to lack of evidence and failure of witnesses to identify him.
The Central Administrative Tribunal initially set aside his dismissal in 2003 and allowed departmental proceedings to continue. A fresh enquiry was conducted in 2004, leading to a second dismissal in 2005, which was upheld on appeal. The Tribunal later, in 2008, quashed the departmental enquiry and directed his reinstatement, giving rise to the present writ petition filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police.
Contentions for the Petitioner:
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal erred in interfering with the disciplinary proceedings and ought to have awaited the final outcome of the criminal trial arising from FIR on 29.07.2004. Emphasis was placed on the subsequent conviction of the respondent under Section 304A IPC by the Supreme Court in 2023, arguing that the acquittal in incident dated 01.04.2000 was not honourable but resulted from hostile witnesses, attracting the exceptions under Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules.
It was further urged that, in view of Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015), the High Court could not re-appreciate evidence, and that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by acting as an appellate authority over disciplinary findings.
Contentions for the Respondent:
Counsel for the respondent argued that the firing incident was purely accidental and occurred in the course of official duty, without any allegation of negligence or misconduct in the charge itself. It was highlighted that the department consciously proceeded with the enquiry without awaiting the criminal trial, and therefore could not later rely upon its outcome.
As regards FIR registered dated 15.02.2006, it was submitted that no witness had identified the respondent either in the criminal case or before the enquiry officer, rendering the findings perverse and based on no evidence. The respondent also assailed the disciplinary and appellate orders as mechanical and non-speaking, vitiating the decision-making process.
Observations of the Court:
The Division Bench undertook a careful judicial review within the confines laid down in P. Gunasekaran, emphasising that while courts cannot reweigh evidence, interference is warranted where findings are perverse or unsupported by material on record. Examining the charge relating to FIR on 29.07.2004, the Court noted that the departmental charge merely narrated the incident and did not allege negligence, recklessness, or breach of duty, observing that “the material on record clearly indicates that the deceased had caught hold of the weapon, leading to an accidental discharge.” The Bench categorically held that “an accident during the course of service, without anything more, cannot amount to misconduct.”
On the reliance placed upon the later criminal conviction, the Court clarified that the conviction came nearly fifteen years after the Tribunal’s order and on a different standard of proof, and therefore could not retrospectively invalidate the Tribunal’s reasoning. Turning to incident dated 15.02.2006, the Court found that the departmental findings were based on “no evidence”, as not a single witness identified the respondent, concluding that “a disciplinary penalty cannot rest on conjecture or suspicion.”
In light of these conclusions, the Court declined to enter into the broader Rule 12 controversy, holding that once the enquiry failed on merits, the ancillary issue became academic.
The decision of the Court:
The Court ultimately affirmed the Tribunal’s findings quashing the departmental enquiry and dismissal orders, holding that the punishment was unsustainable due to absence of evidence and defective charge framing, however, it set aside the direction granting automatic reinstatement with full consequential benefits, remitting the matter to the competent authority to reconsider reinstatement and service benefits in light of the respondent’s subsequent criminal conviction, with a direction to take a reasoned decision within eight weeks, thereby crystallising the principle that while disciplinary action must be evidence-based and legally precise, later criminal developments may still warrant fresh administrative consideration.
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Police vs. Ex. Const. Arvind Kumar
Case No.: W.P.(C) 263/2009
Coram: Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Madhu Jain
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Syed Abdul Haseeb
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Sachin Chauhan, Abhimanyu Baliyan
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
