The Delhi High Court bench comprising of Hon’ble Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva dismissed writ petitions filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and opined that scope of judicial review is restricted in the review of disciplinary actions.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner, previously serving as an Indian Police Service Officer (hereinafter referred to as “IPS”) and a member of the Special Investigation Team, was later appointed as the Chief Vigilance Officer (hereinafter referred to as “CVO”) of the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “NEEPCO”). However, during this period, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, issued a charge memo accusing the Petitioner of conducting an unauthorized interview with a news agency at NEEPCO's official premises. Additionally, it was alleged that the petitioner made statements about a terrorist in Gujarat that had a negative impact on both the State and Central Government.
Subsequently, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued another charge memo to the petitioner, claiming that he was relieved of his CVO duties and failed to hand over important documents..
After considering the articles of charge, the report from the Inquiry Authority, the case records, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as well as taking into account the advice provided by the UPSC, the Petitioner's representation was rejected.
In accordance with Rule 7(2) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1969”), the disciplinary authority exercised their powers and issued an order imposing the penalty of "dismissal from service," which typically results in disqualification for future government employment.
Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was contended that the Inquiry Authority, as a quasi-judicial entity, should have acted as an independent adjudicator and not merely represented the department or disciplinary authority. Even in the absence of the charged officer, the evidence presented by the department must be examined to determine whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to establish the charges. Further, that the disciplinary inquiry should not be conducted casually.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was argued that the articles of charge have been duly proven, and the allegations against the Petitioner have been admitted. It was contended that the Petitioner admitted to giving the media interview without prior permission and not in the bona fide discharge of his duties. Furthermore, it was argued that the Petitioner failed to clarify at any point that the expressed views were his own. Further, that the Petitioner violated the All India Service (Conduct Rules) of 1968 by speaking to the media in his personal capacity rather than his official role.
Observations of the Court:
It was ruled that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary actions is limited. The Court mainly examines whether the inquiry was conducted properly and in adherence to natural justice, and whether there was tangible evidence supporting the conclusions of the disciplinary authority. Interference is only warranted if the findings are based on no evidence or are wholly perverse or disproportionate.
The Petitioner admitted to interacting with the media on matters outside his official duties and without authorization. The Petitioner did not dispute the content of the footage or transcript, nor did he allege any tampering or alteration. The Petitioner also relied on the transcript to justify his interaction. The case did not fall into the category of findings based on no evidence, and there were no procedural irregularities or violations of natural justice.
It's worth noting that the Petitioner directly challenged the order of the Disciplinary Authority without appealing to the Appellate Authority or approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The decision of the Court:
The Delhi High Court accordingly dismissed the writ petitions.
Case Title: Satish Chandra Verma, IPS v Union Of India & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition Civil 10486 of 2021
Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr. I.H. Syed, Mr. Rahul Sharma, Ms. Suroor Mander
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, and Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, , Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Ms. Gauraan, Mr. Nishant Bahuguna, Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Mr. Sagar Mehlawat Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday, Mr. Kumar Parimal, Ms. Manisha Lav Kumar, Mr. Ravi Kant Jain
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :