Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Babu Lal vs Delhi Police on 3 February, 2026
1
Item No. 23/C-II
OA No. 2946/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2946/2022
Reserved on: 16.01.2026.
Pronounced on: 03.02.2026.
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Babu Lal, Head Constable, No. 254/F.R.R.O
PIS No. 28932406,
Aged about 50 years,
S/o Sh. Sumer Singh,
R/o H. No. 33B, N-Block,
Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh,
New Delhi-110043 ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters,
Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001
2. The Addl. Commissioner of Police,
F.R.R.O, New Delhi
Police Headquarters,
Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001 ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Ittashree and Mr. Ramjan Khan)
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06
17:10:13+05'30'
2
Item No. 23/C-II
OA No. 2946/2022
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A): -
The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, by the applicant assailing the disciplinary action taken against him pursuant to a summary of allegations dated 04.09.2019, culminating in the impugned punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The applicant contends that the impugned orders are vitiated by non-application of mind, perversity, and are contrary to the evidence on record, particularly the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, who substantially exonerated the applicant of the charge of misconduct. By way of the present O.A., the applicant, in Para 8 of the O.A., has prayed for the following reliefs: -
"(i) To quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 18.11.2021 (A-1), Order dated 09.04.2021 (A-2), D.E. Order dated 26.08.2019 (A-3),, Enquiry Report (A-4) and direct the respondents to treat the suspension period as spent on duty and remove the name of applicant from the secret list of persons of DI.
(ii) To declare the action of respondents in initiating departmental enquiry against the applicant vide impugned order dated 26.08.2019 and imposing penalty of forfeiture of one year approved service permanently as illegal and issue appropriate directions for releasing all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and promotion to the post of ASI from the date of promotion of juniors.
(iii) To allow the O.A. with costs.
(iv) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case."
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 17:10:13+05'30' 3 Item No. 23/C-II OA No. 2946/2022
2. BRIEF FACTS 2.1 The applicant was appointed as Constable in Delhi Police in the year 1993 and got promotion as Head Constable. The applicant was working as an Immigration Officer and was discharging duties relating to grant of immigration clearance to passengers.
2.2 A show cause notice for censure was served upon the applicant, however the same was withdrawn vide order dated 25.07.2019 and the applicant was placed under suspension w.e.f. 25.07.2019 without disclosing reasons and after one month, he was subjected to disciplinary action on the same allegations on which he was issued Censure Notice. The disciplinary action was initiated vide order dated 26.08.2019 (Annexure-A/3) alleging that in the night intervening 29/30.06.2018, he granted departure clearance to a person allegedly impersonating as one Aknam Choedak on Travel Document No. Q0301574.
2.3 The allegation proceeded on the premise that the person who travelled on the said document was not the genuine holder thereof and that the applicant failed to detect the alleged impersonation.
2.4 Although, the said allegations were factually incorrect, still the applicant was served summary of allegations dated NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 17:10:13+05'30' 4 Item No. 23/C-II OA No. 2946/2022 04.09.2019 (Annexure-A/5). A departmental inquiry was conducted. In support of said summary of allegation, the prosecution examined six prosecution witnesses (PWs). However, their statements were misinterpreted and charges were framed vide order dated 26.02.2020 (Annexure-A/6). Thereafter, the applicant was afforded full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and also to lead defence evidence. He thereafter submitted a written defence statement (Annexure-A/7). After receiving the aforesaid Written Statement and upon conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 01.02.2021 (Annexure- A/8), wherein it was categorically recorded that:-
"It is worth considering whether the delinquent purposefully and with malafide intention committed the offence he is accused of. After perusal of all documents, it has come to the conclusion that delinquent has not intentionally or with malafide intention granted immigration clearance to impersonating person. However, the delinquent being member of a disciplined Police force should have been more careful and negligence on his part is revealed. The delinquent deserved to be given the benefit of doubt taking into account his less exposure to immigration procedures since he had reported newly after training. Evaluation of scientific evidence like Camera Image may reveal the extent of error. However, ground reality with very less time to clear a passenger and the absence of supporting equipment/mechanism is a matter worth considering.
CONCLUSION Keeping in view the above mentioned depositions made by PWs, DWs and relied upon documents in the file, the charge framed against HC (Exe.) Babu Lal, No. 254/F (PIS No. 28932406) w.r.t. negligence stands proved. However, the others aspects of Charge viz. grave misconduct, careless and unprofessionalism stands not proved."
2.5 While observing that the applicant be given the benefit of doubt taking into account his less exposure to immigration NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 17:10:13+05'30' 5 Item No. 23/C-II OA No. 2946/2022 procedures since he had reported newly after training and the ground reality with very less time to clean a passenger and the absence of supporting equipment/mechanism is a matter worth considering, the Inquiry Officer nevertheless concluded that negligence stood proved, without referring to any specific material or evidence in support thereof. 2.6 Based on the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of forfeiture of one year approved service permanently and also treated the suspension period from 25.07.2019 to 05.11.2019 as "not spent on duty" upon the applicant vide punishment order dated 09.04.2021 (Annexure-A/2). The appeal (Annexure-A/10) preferred by the applicant was also rejected by a non-speaking order dated 18.11.2021 (Annexure-A/1), leading to the present Original Application.
3. CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT:-
3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire disciplinary action is founded on conjectures and assumptions, without any legally admissible evidence. 3.2 It was contended that:-
None of the prosecution witnesses supported the charge of impersonation;
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 17:10:13+05'30' 6 Item No. 23/C-II OA No. 2946/2022 No document, photograph, biometric data, or comparison report was produced to establish that the person cleared by the applicant was not the genuine holder of the travel document; The identity of the alleged impersonator was never established, nor was any criminal case registered against such person.
3.3 It was further argued that the alleged traveller not only travelled abroad on the same documents but also returned after more than six months without any objection being raised by the foreign country, thereby demolishing the very foundation of the charge.
3.4 Learned counsel submitted that in the absence of any equipment or facility available at the relevant time to compare the passenger with the passport or travel document, fastening liability on the applicant is wholly arbitrary, as this aspect has also been recorded by the I.O. in his report. 3.5 Learned counsel emphasized that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority mechanically imposed and upheld the penalty without dealing with the defence raised by the applicant or the findings of the Inquiry Officer.
3.6 In support of the claim of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the following judgment NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 17:10:13+05'30' 7 Item No. 23/C-II OA No. 2946/2022 namely (i) Judgment dated 05.04.2007 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1815/2007 in the matter of Inspector Prem Chand Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. reported in 2007 (4) SCC 566; (ii) Judgment dated 05.04.2006 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8267/2004 in the matter of M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88; (iii) Judgment dated 19.12.2008 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7431/2008 in the matter of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570; and (iv) Order/judgment of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1611/2021 in the matter of Vinod Kumar Ahirwar Vs. Union of India & Anr.
4. REPLY OF THE RESPONDENTS:-
4.1 Learned counsel for the respondents, by referring to the counter affidavit filed on 20.01.2023, submitted that a regular departmental enquiry was initiated against the applicant vide office order No. 1293-1312/For (HAP) (P-1) dated 26.08.2019, on the allegation that the applicant reported in FRRO Unit in November-2017 and after completion of basic Immigration Training, he was posted in shift-D IGI Airport as immigration clearing officer vide order No. 1243-70/For (Estt.) (DA-I) dated 18.01.2018. During the Immigration Training, he was imparted training on procedures, rules, regulations and laws NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 17:10:13+05'30' 8 Item No. 23/C-II OA No. 2946/2022 pertaining to Immigration clearance including forgery detection and imposters.
4.2 The respondents submitted that in the night intervening 29/30.06.2018, the applicant while deployed at counter No. 17 in Departure wing for Immigration clearance at IGI Airport, New Delhi, he had granted departure Immigration clearance to a passenger impersonating as Aknam Choedak on the Travel Document No. 00301574. Dissimilarities were observed in Cam image of the passenger (impersonating as Aknam Choedak and holding travel documents No. 00301574) captured during his current departure in the night intervening 29/30.06.2018 with the corresponding arrival on 30.04.2018 and the photograph on the MRZ of the concerned Travel Document indicating that a different person impersonating as Aknam Choedak had travelled on this occasion. In the above said misconduct, the applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 25.07.2019 and re-instated vide order dated 05.11.2019 without prejudice to the departmental enquiry pending against him.
4.3 The Departmental Enquiry was entrusted to E.O. W/Inspr. (Exe.) Narinder Kaur, No. D-3988 for conducting the same on day-to-day basis and submit her findings, expeditiously. The EO had served the summary of allegations, list of witnesses, list of documents etc. upon the applicant on NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 17:10:13+05'30' 9 Item No. 23/C-II OA No. 2946/2022 04.09.2019. Since, the applicant did not plead guilty, therefore, the EO examined all the 06 PWs. Enquiry Officer given opportunities to the applicant to cross-examine to them, which he availed.
4.4 After completion of the prosecution evidence, the Enquiry Officer prepared the charge and got it approved from the Disciplinary Authority. The charge was served upon the applicant on 26.02.2020 against his proper receipt. Since, the applicant did not plead guilty of the charge, the E.O. directed him to produce his defence witnesses as well as his defence statement. The applicant produced 03 DWs in his defence.
After recorded the statement of DWs the applicant submitted his defence statement on 24.09.2020. After going through the depositions of PWs, DWs and defence statement, the EO submitted her findings on 01.02.2021 with the conclusion that keeping in view of the depositions made by PWs, DWs and relied upon documents in the file, the charge framed against the applicant w.r.t. negligence stands proved. 4.5 Agreeing with the finding of the EO, a copy of the findings was served upon the applicant through his supervisory officer vide this office order dated 04.02.2021 with a direction to submit his written representation/submission against the finding and also show cause as to why his suspension period should not be decided as "not spent on duty". The applicant NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 17:10:13+05'30' 10 Item No. 23/C-II OA No. 2946/2022 had submitted his written representation in response to the findings of the EO which was received in this office on 22.02.2021.
4.6 The disciplinary authority had carefully gone through the findings of the EO, depositions of PWs/DWs, written defence statement as well as representation of the applicant along with other material evidence on record. The disciplinary authority also heard the applicant in O.R. on 25.03.2021. The pleas put forth by him were considered at length but found untenable. It was clearly established that the applicant was detailed for C.O. duty at Counter No. 17, Departure Wing with immigration stamp No. 592 on 29/30.06.2019. The pax impersonated as Aknam Choedak was cleared by the applicant The evidence collectively proved that the applicant failed to detect the impersonation of the pax at the time of granting immigration clearance. He himself admitted the fact that he failed to detect impersonation case while replying to explanation called vide order dated 30.01.2018. Therefore, the explanation notice was converted to Show Cause Notice vide order dated 26.04.2019. In the Show Cause Notice, he also admitted his mistake. Hence, the disciplinary authority withdrawn the Show Cause Notice on administrative ground without prejudice to further departmental enquiry pending against to the applicant vide order dated 25.07.2019. Thereafter, the departmental enquiry NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 17:10:13+05'30' 11 Item No. 23/C-II OA No. 2946/2022 against the applicant was ordered and there was no violation of any rule and no punishment was awarded for the lapse or charges, as he claimed. During departmental enquiry EO had examined total 6 PWs and 3 DWs and defence statement of the applicant. The EO after carefully gone through the deposition of PWs, DWs and record available on DE file, including the written defense statement of the applicant, concluded that the charge framed against the applicant with reference to negligence stands proved. The statements of PWs and their cross examination proved that departure immigration of pax impersonating as Akram Choedak was cleared by the applicant. The applicant did not put forth any evidence in his defence to rebut the same. As such, he, no doubt, was negligent and careless in discharging his official duties while granting immigration clearance to the pax impersonating as Akram Choedak from his counter at the time of departure during the night intervening 29/30.06.2018 and failed to detect the case of impersonation.
4.7 Therefore, the disciplinary authority inflicted a punishment of "forfeiture of one year approved service permanently" upon the applicant and his suspension period from 25.07.2019 to 05.11.2019 was decided as period "not spent on duty" vide order No. 787-807/For (HAP) (P-1) dated 09.04.2021. The applicant had filed an appeal against the NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 17:10:13+05'30' 12 Item No. 23/C-II OA No. 2946/2022 orders of disciplinary authority before the appellate authority. The appellate authority had considered the pleas put forth by the applicant and rejected his appeal vide order dated 18.11.2021.
4.8 Assessing all the facts and circumstances of the case and agreeing with the findings of the EO, it was established that the applicant failed grossly in discharge of his duties of a CO i.e. detection of impersonation of pax at the time of granting immigration clearance. It is further stated that claim of the applicant is admitted to the extent that the previous unblemished service record can be well appreciated. But it is not a significant mark for performing his duty negligently in future. Definitely clean record is an important factor while considering his suitability for the purpose. The punishment was imposed upon the applicant only after the competent authority gone through all documents, witness statement and evaluation the evidences came in the departmental enquiry and negligence proved on the part of applicant, hence no sympathy can be shown to such negligence. 4.9 The respondents asserted that the Disciplinary Authority had independently applied its mind to the inquiry report and imposed the penalty in accordance with law. REJOINDER TO THE REPLY OF RESPONDENTS NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 17:10:13+05'30' 13 Item No. 23/C-II OA No. 2946/2022
5. In rebuttal to the reply filed by the respondents, the applicant filed a rejoinder dated 13.03.2023, wherein, while controverting the contents of the reply, he reiterated the averments made in the Original Application.
ANALYSIS
6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and carefully perused the pleadings available on record.
7. Since this matter pertains to departmental proceedings, we deem it apt to observe that it is settled principle of law that in departmental proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority is the sole judge of facts. Once findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority, normally the Court/Tribunal may not interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court/Tribunal, since the High Court/Tribunal does not sit as an Appellate Authority, over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review. The Tribunal cannot, normally speaking, substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities.
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 17:10:13+05'30' 14 Item No. 23/C-II OA No. 2946/2022 7.1 In this regard, it is profitable to mention that by referring catena of judgments on the point of scope of judicial review by the Courts/Tribunals, the Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] wherein it has been held as under:
"13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the court/tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364] this Court held at SCR p. 728 (AIR p. 369, para 20) that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."
(emphasis supplied) 7.2 In another case in the matter of Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while re-appreciating evidence the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings. The Court held the parameters as to when the High Court shall not interfere in the disciplinary proceedings as under:-
"13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 17:10:13+05'30' 15 Item No. 23/C-II OA No. 2946/2022
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
7.3 In another judgment rendered by the Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612: (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 457, by referring the law laid down in B. C. Chaturvedi (supra) and catena of other judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"22. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority............"
23. It has been consistently followed in the later decision of this Court in H. P. SEB Vs. Mahesh Dahiya, (2017) 1 SCC 768 and recently by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pravin Kumar Vs. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 103.
24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.
25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine:
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 17:10:13+05'30' 16 Item No. 23/C-II OA No. 2946/2022
(i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority;
(ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with;
(iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.
(emphasis supplied)
26. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry.
27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings.
28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained."
(emphasis supplied) 7.4 Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. Umesh (2022) 6 SCC 563, emphasized about the scope of judicial review by the Courts/Tribunal in the matter of disciplinary/departmental inquiry and held that: -
"22. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 17:10:13+05'30' 17 Item No. 23/C-II OA No. 2946/2022 justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct."
8. The admitted facts of the case are that the applicant was serving as a Head Constable in Delhi Police and was posted as an Immigration Officer at the relevant time; a show cause notice proposing censure on the alleged incident was initially issued but subsequently withdrawn; despite this, the applicant was placed under suspension and subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the very same allegations; a regular departmental inquiry was conducted in which the Inquiry Officer found no mala fide intention or conscious misconduct on the part of the applicant and noted the operational constraints under which he was working; nevertheless, a finding of negligence was recorded without specific supporting evidence, on the basis of which the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty and the appellate authority rejected the appeal preferred by the applicant.
9. Summary of allegations dated 04.09.2019 written by I.O. (Annexure-A/5) reads as under:-
"In the night intervening 29/30.06.2018, HC (Exe.) Babu Lal, No. 254/F, was deployed at the counter No. 17 in Departure wing for Immigration clearance at IGI Airport, New Delhi. Wherein, he had granted departure Immigration clearance to a passenger impersonating as Aknam Choedak on the Travel Document No. Q0301574 in the night intervening 29/30.06.2018 by the flight LX-
147. Dissimilarities have been observed in Cam image of the passenger (impersonating as Aknam Choedak and holding travel documents No. Q0301574) captured during his current departure in the night intervening 29/30.06.2018 with the corresponding arrival on 30.04.2018 and the photograph on the MRZ of the concerned NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 17:10:13+05'30' 18 Item No. 23/C-II OA No. 2946/2022 Travel Document indicating that a different person impersonating as Aknam Choedak had travelled on this occasion. In the above said misconduct, delinquent IO HC (Exe.) Babu Lal, No. 254/F, was placed under suspension vide order No. 1096-1125/For (HAP) (P-I) dated 25.07.2019 by the disciplinary authority.
The above act on the part of HC (Exe.) Babu Lal, No. 254/F, amounts to grave misconduct, negligence, careless and unprofessionalism in the discharge of his official duties which renders him liable to be dealt with departmentally under the provision of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980."
10. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the pleadings available on record, keeping in view the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the facts and submissions of the counsel for the parties, we find that the following issues are required to be adjudicated in these cases:
(i) Whether the charge of impersonation or negligence stands proved on the basis of evidence on record;
(ii) Whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are sustainable in law;
(iii) Whether the impugned orders suffer from perversity, non-
application of mind, or violation of principles of natural justice.
11. At the outset, it is evident from the inquiry record that none of the prosecution witnesses conclusively established that the passenger cleared by the applicant was an impersonator. No document, expert opinion, biometric comparison, facial recognition report, or forensic material was brought on record to substantiate the said allegation.
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 17:10:13+05'30' 19 Item No. 23/C-II OA No. 2946/2022
12. The entire case of the respondents rests on alleged "dissimilarities" in CAM images and photographs. However, neither the Inquiry Officer nor the Disciplinary Authority has identified any expert analysis or reliable comparison establishing impersonation. Mere visual perception, without expert corroboration, cannot form the basis of a finding of misconduct.
13. Significantly, the Inquiry Officer herself recorded that no mala fide intention or ill motive could be attributed to the applicant and that there was no evidence to show that the applicant knowingly cleared an impersonator. Having recorded such categorical findings, the conclusion of the EO that negligence stood proved is wholly unreasoned and unsupported by evidence.
14. Negligence, even in departmental proceedings, must be founded on some identifiable act or omission which falls below the standard of reasonable care expected in the given circumstances. In the present case, the Inquiry Officer failed to specify:-
What exact procedure was violated;
What specific precaution was omitted;
What material was available to the applicant which he failed
to consider.
15. In the absence of such particulars, the finding of negligence is vague, ipse dixit, and legally unsustainable. NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 17:10:13+05'30' 20 Item No. 23/C-II OA No. 2946/2022
16. Further, the Inquiry Officer herself noticed the prevailing ground realities, including heavy passenger load, time constraints, and lack of adequate equipment for facial or biometric comparison. Once these constraints are acknowledged, fastening disciplinary liability on the applicant without demonstrating availability of reliable tools or procedures is manifestly arbitrary.
17. It is also undisputed that the alleged passenger travelled abroad and returned to India on the same document without objection from foreign immigration authorities. This fact, though not conclusive by itself, substantially weakens the very basis of the allegation. As such issue no. 1 is answered accordingly.
18. So far as issue (ii) as mentioned in para 10 above is concerned, we observe that on a plain reading of the impugned disciplinary authority's order dated 09.04.2021 (Annexure- A/2), we find that the Disciplinary Authority, while imposing the penalty, has merely reproduced the findings of the Inquiry Officer without dealing with the inherent contradictions in the inquiry report. The representation submitted by the applicant has not been meaningfully addressed. As such, issue no. 2 is answered accordingly
19. We have carefully gone through the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, we find that the Appellate Authority's order dated 18.11.2021 (Annexure-A/1) is a cryptic and non- speaking order, which does not address any of the grounds raised NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 17:10:13+05'30' 21 Item No. 23/C-II OA No. 2946/2022 by the applicant. Such an order defeats the very purpose of a statutory appeal and is unsustainable in law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments.
20. It is settled law that while this Tribunal does not sit as an appellate authority over disciplinary findings, it is duty-bound to interfere where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or where relevant material has been ignored and irrelevant considerations have been relied upon. This Tribunal in its order/judgment dated 12.12.2025 passed in O.A. No. 2302/2005 in the matter of Ajab Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., while noting the landmark judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of scope of judicial review by the Courts/Tribunal in disciplinary proceedings, has observed as under:-
"8.4 Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Karnataka &Anr. vs. Umesh (2022) 6 SCC 563: (2022) 2 SCC (L&S) 321, emphasised about the scope of judicial review by the Courts/Tribunal in the matter of disciplinary/departmental inquiry and held that: -
"22. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct."
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 17:10:13+05'30' 22 Item No. 23/C-II OA No. 2946/2022
21. In the present case, the conclusion of negligence is not only unsupported by evidence but is also contrary to the Inquiry Officer's own findings. The impugned order dated 18.11.2021 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the Appellate Authority, therefore, cannot be sustained. As such, issue no. 3 is answered accordingly.
22. For the reasons recorded above, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the finding of negligence against the applicant is perverse and based on no evidence; the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities failed to apply independent mind in the matter; and in such circumstances, the impugned orders suffer from arbitrariness and non-application of mind.
23. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed with the following directions:-
a) The impugned orders dated 18.11.2021 (Annexure-A/1) and 09.04.2021 (Annexure-A/2) passed by Appellate and Disciplinary Authorities respectively, are hereby quashed and set aside.
b) The summary of allegations dated 04.09.2019 (Annexure-
A/5), the departmental enquiry order dated 26.08.2019 (Annexure-A/3), and the inquiry report dated 01.02.2021 (Annexure-A/4) are also set aside.
c) The respondents are directed to treat the period of suspension from 25.07.2019 to 05.11.2019 as spent on duty for all purposes;
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 17:10:13+05'30' 23 Item No. 23/C-II OA No. 2946/2022
d) Grant all consequential benefits, including restoration of the forfeited approved service with arrears of pay and consideration for promotion to the post of ASI from the date his immediate juniors were promoted.
e) The above exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
24. There shall be no order as to costs.
25. Pending MA(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (R. N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06
17:10:13+05'30'