Delhi High Court
Subhash Mallik vs Commissioner Of Police & Ors. on 8 April, 2021
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4187/2021
SUBHASH MALIK ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Singh and Ms.
Ranjana Tiwary, Advocates.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 08.04.2021
CM APPL. 12733/2021 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per the extant rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4187/2021
3. The petition impugns the order dated 4th January, 2021 of Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, of dismissal of
OA No. 2214/2020 preferred by the petitioner, an Inspector in the
respondents Delhi Police, against the punishment of 'censure' meted out to
him in disciplinary proceedings and confirmed in the departmental appeal
preferred by the petitioner.
4. The said disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and two
others were initiated in pursuance to certain observations in an order in a
W.P.(C) 4187/2021 page 1 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAMTA
ARYA
Signing Date:09.04.2021
15:52:19
Habeas Corpus petition preferred in this Court. This Court, while disposing
of the Habeas Corpus petition observed that there was lack of diligence on
the part of officials concerned.
5. It is the case of the petitioner, that he was not even the Station House
Officer (SHO) of the concerned Police Station when the complaint of
missing person/elopement, subject matter of the Habeas Corpus petition,
was lodged and joined the said Police Station as an SHO subsequently and
thus the disciplinary proceedings against him were unwarranted.
6. We have perused the order dated 22nd March, 2019 of the Disciplinary
Authority, at page 243 of the file, and find the Disciplinary Authority to
have reasoned (i) that the petitioner, since his joining as SHO of the
concerned Police Station on 13th June, 2017 did not take any action on the
complaint and was spurred into action only after the Habeas Corpus petition
dated 15th November, 2017 was filed in the Court; (ii) the petitioner did not
act swiftly on the complaint, though received prior to his joining as SHO of
the concerned Police Station but pending at the time when he joined; (iii) the
Status Report dated 20th November, 2017 filed by the petitioner in the Court
was not in conformity with the facts; and, (iv) such acts on the part of the
petitioner amounted to gross miss-conduct, carelessness, negligence and
dereliction in the discharge of official duties.
7. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the finding of the
Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner having mis-represented facts in the
status report filed in the Habeas Corpus petition, is contrary to the
documents on record.
W.P.(C) 4187/2021 page 2 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAMTA
ARYA
Signing Date:09.04.2021
15:52:19
8. We have however enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, how in
exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India we can act
as an Appellate Court sitting over the decision of the Disciplinary Authority
on merits and whether not our jurisdiction is confined to interfere in
disciplinary matters only if there has been any error of procedure, violation
of the principles of natural justice or the decision arrived at so wholly
arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at that
conclusion as held in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao AIR
1963 SC 1723, State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao (1975) 2
SCC 557, Union of India Vs. G. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463, Apparel
Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759, R.S. Saini
Vs. State of Punjab (1999) 8 SCC 90, Ashok Kumar Vs. Sita Ram (2001) 4
SCC 478, Registrar General, High Court of Judicature of Madras Vs. K.
Muthukumarasamy (2014) 16 SCC 555, Director General of Police,
Railway Protection Force Vs. Rajendra Kumar Dubey 2020 SCC OnLine
SC 954 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Hem Singh 2020 SCC OnLine SC 886.
9. Counsel for the petitioner then contends that CAT, though exercising
same powers as were earlier exercised by the High Courts prior to coming
into force of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has, while dismissing
the OA preferred by the petitioner, made certain adverse comments and
which are costing the petitioner further promotion.
10. CAT, in paragraph 11 of the impugned order, has interalia observed
"What is more startling is that the disciplinary authority had chosen
to honour the applicant herein with just a censure for the serious
lapse..... In any other organization, the Disciplinary Authority
W.P.(C) 4187/2021 page 3 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAMTA
ARYA
Signing Date:09.04.2021
15:52:19
himself would have been exposed to disciplinary proceedings for such
inefficient handling of the serious issue.....It is hoped that the higher
authorities including the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor would take
the issue seriously and ensure that such incidents do not occur and
the persons who are part of that indifference do not remain in the
disciplined force like the Delhi Police."
11. The aforesaid observations, in so far as against the petitioner, are
indeed, in the facts of the case, found to be uncalled for.
12. None appears for the respondents Delhi Police.
13. However, for disposing of this petition as herein under, the need to
issue notice is not felt.
14. Petition is disposed of, directing that the impugned order dated 4th
January, 2021of the CAT shall be read as an order of dismissal simpliciter of
the OA preferred by the petitioner and any adverse observation therein
against the petitioner shall not come in the way of further promotion/posting,
if any of the petitioner.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
APRIL 8, 2021/sr
W.P.(C) 4187/2021 page 4 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAMTA
ARYA
Signing Date:09.04.2021
15:52:19
