The Delhi High Court outlined the need for Courts to exercise caution and prudence when considering the intervention in opinions issued by the Disciplinary Authority.
The High Court emphasized that while the Courts should generally refrain from interfering with such opinions, there are exceptional circumstances where intervention becomes necessary to protect and uphold the principles of natural justice.
Brief Facts:
Petitioner, a Deputy Commandant in Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as “CRPF”) was served with a Presidential Memorandum. Upon receiving the Memorandum, the Petitioner responded to the charges against him in a written statement denying them. An inquiry was initiated, during which the Petitioner participated with the assistance of his Defense Assistant.
The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the Inquiry Officer's report and sought advice from the Central Vigilance Commission (hereinafter referred to as “CVC”). In line with the Disciplinary Authority's opinion, the CVC recommended imposing a minor penalty on the petitioner.
Following the UPSC's advice, the Respondents issued an order, imposing the penalty of reducing the petitioner's pay . The order also stated that the Charged Officer would not receive pay increments during the reduction period, and after the expiration of this period, future increments would be postponed.
Dissatisfied with the order issued, the petitioner filed a writ petition with the High Court of J&K at Srinagar.
The High Court of J&K at Srinagar dismissed the petition, prompting the petitioner to file against the same order. As the High Court of J&K at Srinagar did not grant any relief regarding the respondents' order, the petition was filed by the petitioner before this High Court.
A Writ Petition was filed before the High Court challenging the order of the Disciplinary Committee.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was argued that once the Inquiry Report is submitted, the Inquiry Officer is not allowed to make any amendments or rectifications.
It was also stated that the Inquiry Officer's report concluded that none of the charges against the Petitioner was proven, and both the Disciplinary Authority and the CVC concurred, recommending a minor penalty.
It was contended that the Petitioner had been subjected to double punishment due to the delay in departmental proceedings and subsequent imposition of a major penalty.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was contended that proper procedure was followed, including obtaining the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the advice of the CVC before imposing the punishment..
Observations of the Court:
The Court opined the need for caution on the part of Courts when intervening in opinions issued by the Disciplinary Authority. However, when a person or party in distress approached the Court, it becomes essential to safeguard the principles of natural justice. The Courts were obligated to scrutinize whether the inquiry carried out by the competent authority adhered to the prescribed procedure and if the conclusions drawn were based on the evidence presented. While the Courts were not obliged to reassess the evidence, they would not tolerate findings that were unlawful from the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority.
Based on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the procedural lapses, the Bench found that not only did the Respondents’ case fail on merits, but it also suffered from procedural deficiencies. The Court observed that the Petitioner had been subjected to undeserved punishment with the malicious intention to harass him.
The decision of the Court:
The Delhi High Court based on the aforementioned reasoning, quashed the orders of the Disciplinary Committee and accordingly, allowed the writ petition.
Case Title: Dhiraj Kumar Singh v Union of India
Case No.: Writ Petition Civil 13915 of 2019
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Mr.Vikrant Chawla, Ms. Ayushi Bansal & Mr. Arshya Singh
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Ms. Amrita Prakash, CGSC with Mr.Vishal Ashwani Mehta
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
