The Delhi High Court has set clear boundaries on judicial intervention in departmental enquiries, restoring a penalty against an Assistant Superintendent accused of mistreating prisoners. The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain emphasised that courts are meant to check procedural fairness, not re-evaluate evidence or substitute their own findings.
The case arose in 2003 when three undertrial prisoners accused the officer of assault and extortion during his posting in Tihar. Following reports submitted by jail authorities, a formal departmental enquiry was initiated. After examining witnesses, including the complainants, the Enquiry Officer concluded in 2005 that the allegations were established on the balance of probabilities. The Disciplinary Authority subsequently imposed permanent withholding of two increments, impacting the officer’s pension, a decision later upheld on appeal.
The Central Administrative Tribunal later overturned this penalty, concluding that there were no grounds to sustain the charges. Quoting the Tribunal, “However, on careful perusal of all relevant facts and circumstances… we do not find any grounds on which the charges against the applicant can be sustained…The impugned orders are quashed, and the applicant is entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with the law. No costs.”
Challenging the Tribunal’s approach, the Director General argued before the High Court that the CAT had overstepped its remit by re-appraising evidence. The Court drew on established precedents, noting, “Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made… The Court/Tribunal may interfere… where the conclusion… is based on no evidence.”
Applying this principle, the Bench held that the testimony recorded during the formal enquiry was sufficient to uphold the charges. “The testimony recorded in a formal enquiry carries greater probative weight than an initial complaint, particularly when subjected to cross-examination,” the Court observed, dismissing reliance on preliminary reports.
Ultimately, the Court quashed the CAT’s order, restoring the original penalty and reinforcing the principle that judicial review ensures fairness, not a second look at evidence.
Case Title: Director General Vs. Sanjeev Kumar
Case No: W.P.(C) 6860/2009 & CM 2099/2009
Coram: Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Madhu Jain
Advocate for petitioner: Advs. Avnish Ahlawat, Nitesh Kumar Singh
Advocate for Respondent: Advs. Saahila Lamba, Shayna Das Pattanayak
Picture Source :
