Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pankaj Sharma vs Comm. Of Police on 7 February, 2025
(OA No.2260/2016)
(1)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.2260/2016
Reserved on :31.01.2025
Pronounced on :07.02.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Pankaj Sharma
S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal Sharma,
Constable No.8589 DAP,
Teen Murti Line,
VII Bn. DAP, New Delhi. ...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Amitesh Kumar)
Vs
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi,
Through its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate,
New Delhi.
2. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police,
Headquarter, ITO, New Delhi.
3. Additional Commissioner of Police, DAP,
Kingsway Camp, New Police Lines, Delhi.
4. Deputy Commissioner of Police, VII Bn,
DAP, PTS, Malviya Nagar, Delhi. ...Respondents.
(By Advocate:Ms.Sumedha Sharma)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A):
By way of this OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following relief(s) :-
"(i) quash and set aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2015 passed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Dy. Commissioner of Police, VII BN. DAP, Delhi, whereby the Disciplinary Authority has awarded major punishment of forfeiture of three years approved (OA No.2260/2016) (2) service permanently in Delhi reduction in pay with immediate effect to the Applicant. Further, the Disciplinary Authority has also decided that the period of suspension will be treated as period not spend on duty for all intents and purposes
(ii) quash and set aside the impugned order dated 08.12.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Additional Commissioner of Police, Armed Police, Delhi, whereby the Appellate Authority has rejected the Appeal dated 26.03.2015 of Applicant; and /or
(iii) pass any other order which the the Hon'ble Tribunal deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in favour of the applicant and in the interest of justice."
2. The facts of the case, as gleaned from the OA are that the applicant was initially appointed as Constable on 2003 in Delhi Police and thereafter he was promoted as Head Constable.
3. It is submitted that in the night of 08.09.2009 a PCR call was received vide DD No.10A, PS Shakarpur, Delhi wherein it was informed that a quarrel was taking place in H.No.D-3, Shakarpur, Dharamshala Wali Gali. This DD entry was marked to HC Bhopal Singh for enquiry and necessary action. During the course of inquiry, it was found that it was the house of a Bad Character (BC) namely Surender Sodhi @ Shammi S/o Late Ram Chand Sodhi who leveled serious allegations against HC Pankaj Sharma. It is alleged that the applicant was found drunkard at the house of BC Surender Sodhi and when PCR Van removed him and was taken to (OA No.2260/2016) (3) Police Station he tried to escape. However, the PCR staff overpowered him and In-charge PCR Van received injuries to his person during overpowering him. His statement was got recorded and he was got medically examined. When he was brought to Police Station, he misbehaved in the Duty Officer Room also. HC Pankaj Sharma was also got medically examined and he was found drinking with the BC and involved in some unwarranted activities.
4. It is stated that Inspector Vats from Special Cell also joined this matter and in the circumstances a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. He was also placed under suspension with immediate effect, pending enquiry into his conduct. In the meanwhile, the said BC filed a Criminal Complaint/Application No.4131/2009 on 24.09.2009 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (East), Kakardooma Court, Delhi under Section 156 (3) of Cr. P.C. for giving direction to the SHO of PS Shakarpur to register an FIR under Sections 323/384/392/451/452/506/511/34 IPC against the applicant. Thereafter, a regular departmental enquiry was ordered on 09.11.2009. A summary of allegation was as follows:
"SUMMARY OF ALLEGATION It is alleged that Pankaj Sharma, No. 580/SB (PIS No. 28031218) that while posted at Special Cell/NDr. on (OA No.2260/2016) (4) 07.09.09, he was detailed for Dak Duty in the office Jt. C.P./Spl. Cell/PHQ. On 08.09.09 at 4.35 A.M. an information regarding quarrel at D-3, Shakarpur main market, Dharamshala wali Gali Shakarpur, Delhi was lodged at P.S. Shakarpur vide DD No. 10-A. The said DD entry was marked to HC Bhopal Singh, No. 284/East for enquiry. HC Bhopal Singh, No. 284/East reached the spot. PCR Van R-25 also reached there. During the course of enquiry, it was found that it was the house of B.C. namely Surender Sodhi @ Shammi and HC. Pankaj Sharma was found making quarrel with him under the influence of alcohol. When PCR Van (Call sign - R-25) staff was trying to bring him to P.S. Shakarpur, the HC tried to escape. He was overpowered by the PCR staff and during overpowering him, I/C PCR Van ASI Shadab Alam received injuries. When HC Pankaj Sharma, No. 580/SB was brought to P.S. Shakarpur, he misbehaved in the Duty Officer room also. He was got medically examined in Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Khichripur, Delhi where Doctor opined as "smell of alcohol (+ve)" from mouth and teeth and also simple fresh injuries vide MLC No. 6958/09 dated 08.09.09. BC Surrenders Sodhi was also medically examined in Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital and the Doctor opined him as simple injuries vide MLC No. 6962/09 dated 08.09.09. ASI Shadab Alam, I/C PCR Van was also medically examined in the same hospital where the doctor opined simple fresh injuries vide MLC No. 6957/09 dated 08.09.09. H.C. Pankai Sharma, No.580/SB also found involved in drinking alcohol with the B.C. and in some unwarranted activities as per the report of SHO/Shakarpur dated 08.09.09.
The above act on the part of HC (Exe.) Pankaj Sharma, No. 580/SB (PIS No. 28031218) amounts to gross misconduct, negligence, carelessness and dereliction in the discharge of his official duty which renders him liable to be dealt with Departmentally under the provision of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rule 1980."
5. Along with said summary of allegations, the following list of documents and witnesses on behalf of the Department was also issued by the Enquiry Officer vide two separate letters dated 22.03.2010:
(OA No.2260/2016) (5) "List of Documents
1. Copy of DD No. 10-A dated 08.09.09, PS Shakarpur, Delhi
2. Copy of DD No. 19-A dated 08.09.09, PS Shakarpur, Delhi
3. Copy of report dated 08.09.09 submitted by SHO/Shakarpur.
4. Copy of MLC No. 6958/09, 6962 and 6957 dated 08.09.09 issued by Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Khichripur, Delhi.
List of Witnesses
1. SI Sumer Singh No. 2329/D, Duty Officer, PS Shakarpur with original Roznamcha, A dated 08.09.09.
2. HC Bhopal Singh, No. 284/East, PS Shakarpur, Delhi with original DD No. 19-A dated 08.09.09.
3. Const. Jai Kumar No. 744/East PS/ Shakarpur Delhi
4. Inspr. Ved Bhusan, SHO/Shakarpur, Delhi
5. ASI Shadab Alam, I/C PVR Van R-25, East Zone, PCR
6. Surender Sodhi @ Shammi r/o D-3 E, Shakarpur, Delhi"
6. The respondents in their counter reply have rebutted the contentions made in the OA. They have also submitted that every time Enquiry Officer (EO) wanted to proceed with the matter and the same was adjourned because of the objections raised by the applicant to first provide him the documents asked for, even though the respondent was not relied upon those documents. It is also submitted that the requisite documents were not found available and the EO also sought clear instructions for conducting further DE (OA No.2260/2016) (6) proceedings without supplying the requisite documents to the applicant in order to finalize the DE. Thereafter since in spite of best efforts documents could not be made available, it was decided to continue with DE and the applicant was informed accordingly but the applicant insisted that the copies of the requisite documents should be supplied to him. Thus, the applicant did not cooperate in the DE despite the direction of the disciplinary authority. Hence, ex parte order was obtained from the disciplinary authority dated 08.08.2014 and the applicant was informed that in case he did not join the DE on 20.08.2014 at the give time, ex parte proceedings will be taken.
7. The respondents submit that on 20.08.2014 the applicant attended the DE proceedings and PWs were examined respectively in the presence of applicant and his defense assistant and they were cross-examined including two additional PWs after following the due process. Thereafter, the charge was framed and the applicant did not accept the same and submitted witnesses in his defence. The EO completed the DE proceedings and concluded that the charge against the applicant stands proved. Agreeing with the findings of the EO, copy of the findings of the EO was served to the applicant with the direction to submit his representation, if any, within 15 days. The applicant (OA No.2260/2016) (7) accordingly submitted his representation. The disciplinary authority after going through the findings of the EO and other relevant records and also after hearing the applicant personally came to the conclusion that the misconduct of the applicant was very grave and imposed the impugned penalty.
8. We have heard both the learned counsels and perused the pleadings on records.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant based on the pleadings made in the OA and the written submissions has reiterated that this is a case of no evidence as the main witness, i.e. PW has retracted from his statement in the criminal proceeding which has led to dismissal of the criminal complaint for no evidence.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has reiterated the contentions made in the counter reply and the written submissions. It is also contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs Nachhatter Singh vide Civil Appeal No.7257 of 2022 has held "mere non-supply of the documents which may not have resulted any prejudice to the employee, the order passed by disciplinary authority cannot be set aside." Hence, there is nothing illegal and unlawful took place. DE was (OA No.2260/2016) (8) conducted in line with Rule -16 Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980, following procedures laid down therein. Besides, the present case is that of a service matter (DE) where, preponderance of probability is applied. PW 5 Const. Bhopal Singh during DE categorically stated that he recorded the statement of Surrender Sodhi. He never denied of non- happening of incident which was the ground of charges against the applicant. Moreover, Bhopal Singh was examined and cross examined by defense counsel of applicant. Further, the departmental enquiry has nothing to do with the criminal case. In departmental enquiry strict rules of evidence law is never applied. Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of cases has held that in service matters the Tribunals/Courts should not act as disciplinary authority to examine each and every contents of statement of witnesses. Also, the punishment order against the applicant has been passed by the disciplinary authority (DCP VII Bn.), vide order dated 27.02.2015. The applicant made an appeal to Addl. C.P. against the order dated 27.02.2015 and his appeal has been rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 08.12.2015, as per Rule 6 of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980. Punishment order as well as appellate order passed by concerned authority are speaking, reasoned and passed taking into consideration (OA No.2260/2016) (9) even the appeal of applicant. Hence, orders are detailed one, passed following principle of natural justice. Regarding non- supply of documents, it is stated that the DCP 7h Bn. wrote to DCP Special Cell to conduct an enquiry about missing of certain documents, including documents asked by applicant. But the fact remains that the documents asked by the applicant are not such which cause any prejudice or disadvantage to the applicant.
11. We have perused the summary of allegation which has already been reproduced. It is evident that the main witness in the case was HC Bhopal Singh the DD Entry was not only marked to him but as per the summary of allegation he was one who reached the spot and conducted the initial enquiry. In the departmental enquiry, his statement was also recorded which reads as follows:
"He stated that on 08.09.2009 he was posted as HC at PS Shakarpur and detailed as an emergency officer from 8 AM to 8 PM. On that day, on receiving a call regarding a quarrel, he along Ct. Jai Kumar reached at house No.D-3E main market Shakarpur, New Delhi. Where a PCR van Romeo 25 along with staff was present and one person known as HC Pankaj, was also found in the PCR van. He told that he was posted in special cell and seemed to be heavily drunk. The complainant named Surender Sodhi @ Shammi informed that HC Pankaj Sharma whom he already knew, after trespassing in his house quarreled with him. He also made a demand of money from him. The household articles in his house were found scattered on the bed and other places. As Surender Sodhi @ Shammi is a BC of the area, he immediately informed (OA No.2260/2016) (10) telephonically the detailed facts to SHO. Head Constable Pankaj Sharma was sent to PS in the PCR van on the directions of SHO and the complainant was also brought in the PS. On reaching in PS he found that HC Pankaj Sharma misbehaving with D.O. and ASI Shabad Alam (PCR staff) also told him that on the way Pankaj misbehaved with them and also tried to escape from PCR van. Both Pankaj and ASI Shabad Alam were sent with Ct. Jai Kumar in the PCR van to L.B.S. Hospital, Khichripur for their medical examination on the direction of SHO Shakarpur and got their medical examination. The doctor in the medical report of Pankaj mentioned him in drunken state. He had seen the copy of MLC of Pankaj Sharma and ASI Shabad Alam on DE file already marked as exhibit PW-3/A and PW-4/A. He recorded the statement of complainant Surender Sodhi @ Shammi and ASI Shabad Alam. The medical examination of Surender Sodhi @ Shammi was done from L.B.S.Hospital and copy of which on DE file marked as exhibit PW-5/A."
12. But his statement in the complaint case was contrary to the above-said statement made in the departmental enquiry against the applicant, as evident from the following statement of Shri Bhopal Singh:
"A detailed enquiry was made into the allegation of Surender Sodhi @ Shammi and call details of mobile phone of Surender Sodhi @ Shammi were obtained. The details are as under:
Time of call Tower Location
number
1386 Swaroop Nagar
1464 Shri Guru Teg Bahadur
3274 Madipur
1240 AM 4206 Badli
1.32 AM 5151 Civil Lines
1.36 AM 1142 Kashmiri Gate
1.38 AM 3034 Raj Ghat
1.40 AM 5283 Daryaganj
1.41 AM 1981 Daryaganj
1.43 AM 2169 ITO
(OA No.2260/2016)
(11)
1.44 AM 1142
2.11 AM 0706 Sarai Kale Khan
3.41 AM
4.31 AM 1674 Vikas Marg
4.32 AM
4.32 AM 3437 Shakarpur
4.51 AM 5354 Vikas Marg
When scrutiny was made in respect of his statement given to the police and his call details, it is found that the same were contradictory. Moreover, there was no independent witness to support his version. Allegations leveled by Surender Singh @ Shammi were not substantiated.
It is worth mentioning here that he is a notorious history sheeter of Police Station Shakarpur and following criminal cases stand registered against him in Delhi and outside:
FIR NO. DATE U/SECTION P.S.
193/90 9.8.90 324/34 IPC Shakarpur
263/90 27.11.90 324/34 IPC Shakarpur
20/93 11.1.92 324/34 IPC Trilokpuri
378/92 6.11.92 324/34 IPC Shakarpur
616/97 3.12.97 302/34 IPC Shakarpur
636/97 12.12.97 25 Arms Act Shakarpur
172/2000 17.3.2000 25 Arms Act Ashok
Vihar
79/03 4.3.03 307/34 IPC Shakarpur
202/03 18.8.03 302/397/326/ Vishy
34 & 3/25/5459 Bombay
Arms Act
549/03 12.10.03 420/465/467/471 Sarai
IPC Khawaja
Faridabad,
Haryana
230/09 29.4.09 452/506/34 IPC Shakarpur
610/09 16.11.09 365/341/323/506/ Preet Vihar
34 IPC
13. It also appears that the case was fixed for pre summoning evidence. Perusal of the record shows that the complainant was given repeated opportunities to produce (OA No.2260/2016) (12) pre summoning evidence but no witness was produced by complainant and he remained absent. As he did not lead any pre summoning evidence, the complaint was dismissed for no evidence. In the above, it is clear that no evidence was available in the complainant's case.
14. This Tribunal had an occasion to deal with a similar controversy in the light of Full Bench decision of this Tribunal dated 18.02.2011 in OA No.2816/2008 - Sukhdev Singh & Anr. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. where after noting the relevant provisions of the rules and the case-laws on the subject, it was held as follows:
"6. From the discussion as made above, we are of the view that there is no difficulty if the employer may proceed only criminally against an employee. In that case, departmental proceedings may be held or not, the field is absolutely covered under rules 11 and 12 of the Rules of 1980. The difficulty will arise only in case, the order of punishment in departmental proceedings is earlier to the order passed by the criminal court, and that too when the verdict of the criminal court is that of acquittal and the circumstances are such as envisaged in rule 12 that no departmental enquiry can be held. In such a situation, as mentioned above, we are of the view that since a judicial order takes precedence over an order passed in departmental proceedings, it is the judicial verdict which has to be given effect, and, therefore, in that situation the order passed in departmental proceedings shall have to be revisited and changed, modified or set at naught, as per the judicial verdict. This is the only way that appears to us to reconcile the situation which may arise only in the circumstances as mentioned above. This course to be adopted otherwise also appears to be one which will advance the cause of justice. It may be recalled that as per provisions contained in rule 11 of the Rules of (OA No.2260/2016) (13) 1980, a subordinate rank on his conviction can be dismissed or removed from service. Of course, as mentioned above, the result of the appeal that he may have filed shall have to be awaited. Once, he is acquitted in a second appeal or revision filed by him, he has to be reinstated, meaning thereby, if the order of his dismissal or removal from service has already been passed, the same has to be set at naught. Once, an order of dismissal or removal passed on conviction of the subordinate rank has to be reviewed on his acquittal later in point of time, we find no reason as to why the same procedure cannot be adopted in a case where the subordinate rank may have been held guilty of the charges framed against him, but later acquitted by the criminal court. We are conscious that as regards the first situation as mentioned above, the rules take care of it, whereas, for the situation in hand, the rules are silent, but since the settled law on the issue is that, rule or no rule, if on clean acquittal the order of punishment passed in departmental proceedings has to be re-visited or set at naught, why this provision cannot be read into the rules.
7. The Delhi Police, after judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), issued Standing Order No.125/2008. Para 10 thereof specifically deals with parallel departmental proceedings when court cases are pending. After quoting from the judgment aforesaid and while taking into consideration another judgment of the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & others v T. Srinivas [AIR 2004 SC 4127], it has been ordered that in all cases where police officers may be facing criminal proceedings, especially under Prevention of Corruption Act or where moral turpitude is involved, departmental proceedings can also be initiated simultaneously and the same should not be kept/held in abeyance due to pendency of such criminal proceedings, even if evidence in both the proceedings may be the same. The said Standing Order has been passed in consonance with the settled law on the situation. However, as mentioned above, when a subordinate rank may earn a clean acquittal in criminal proceedings, the order, if has already been passed in departmental proceedings inflicting the subordinate with a penalty, shall have to be revisited.
(OA No.2260/2016) (14)
8. We may mention, before we may part with this order, that an ideal situation would be where the allegations against the subordinate rank are such which may constitute a cognizable offence, he should be criminally tried and the departmental proceedings should await the judicial verdict, but it is well neigh impossible to achieve this ideal situation, in view of the prevailing circumstances in the country. Experience shows that it takes years and years before a criminal trial may culminate into an order of conviction and sentence or acquittal. Cases are not lacking where subordinate ranks in police are facing serious criminal charges, like bribery, dacoity, rape and even murder. When heinous offences may be committed by those who may be in police and can be well said to be organized criminals, even though a few of them, it is always desirable if their delinquency is proved, that they should be shown the exit door as early as possible. Their continuance in police force will demoralize the entire rank and file in the police organization and would also shatter the morale and confidence of public at large. If the verdict in the criminal trial is to be awaited, which, as mentioned above, in a given case, may take even a decade or two, it will totally demoralize the public at large. Further, in our view, if the subordinate rank may be innocent, it is better for him as well that he steers clear of the charges framed against him in the departmental proceedings, and the earlier it is done, the better it will be for him, as otherwise, he would be looked down upon not only by the society, but, in a given case, even by his own family. It may be in an absolutely small percentage of cases where the subordinate rank may be held guilty in departmental proceedings, and yet are honourably acquitted by the criminal court. Such persons can well be taken care of by reinstating them in service by setting at naught the orders passed in departmental proceedings by reinstating them and giving them all that may be due under rules. Corruption is eating into the very vitals of the society. We need not refer to judicial precedents where this aspect has been emphasized, as that would unnecessarily burden the judgment. Such persons who may be a burden to the nation cannot be allowed to continue in service and that too such service as police. There are adequate remedies available for them, in cases, however, they are honourably acquitted, by restoring them their (OA No.2260/2016) (15) status by reinstating them and giving them all consequential benefits.
9. In view of the discussion made above, we hold that there is no bar, express of implied, in the Rules of 1980 for holding simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings. However, in case departmental proceedings may culminate into an order of punishment earlier in point of time than that of the verdict in criminal case, and the acquittal is such that departmental proceedings cannot be held for the reasons as mentioned in rule 12, the order of punishment shall be revisited. The judicial verdict would have precedence over decision in departmental proceedings and the subordinate rank would be restored to his status with consequential reliefs."
15. Further, in an identical matter in George N.S. v. Comm. of Police, W.P. (C) No.4941/2000, decided on 12.08.2011, referred and relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as follows:
"12. The acquittal on account of prosecution failing to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt or on account of lack of evidence or no evidence cannot be termed as acquittal on technical ground. Such grounds i.e. technical ground, would be, to illustrate a few, limitation which has now been prescribed by recent amendment in Cr.P.C or trial without obtaining sanction as required under Section 197 Cr.P.C in cases where it is required and the trial being held without obtaining such sanction. If the legislature intended that acquittal on account of benefit of doubt or prosecution failing to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt etc. were not to be a bar in the departmental proceedings, it would have so specifically provided as Exception in Rule 12. The legislature could not be oblivious of the situation as mentioned above, particularly when we know that most of the acquittals are based on the failure of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt or on account of benefit of doubt. The legislative (OA No.2260/2016) (16) wisdom only refers to acquittal on technical grounds as one of the exceptions for holding departmental proceedings. By any means we cannot hold that failure of the prosecution to lead evidence per se, would amount to acquittal on technical ground. The acquittal resulting on account of prosecution not leading evidence or leading insufficient evidence would definitely stand on different footing than acquittal resulting on technical ground. In the former case, the acquittal would be clean acquittal and even the words like "benefit of doubt" or "failing to prove beyond reasonable doubt" would be superfluous. The petitioner was acquitted by learned MM because there was no evidence led by the prosecution for many years and even the case property was also not produced for any justifiable reason. Such acquittal could not be said to be on a technical ground since the charges were not proved and the decision was arrived at on the basis of no evidence on record. A Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bhag Singh vs. Punjab and Sind Bank 2006(1) SCT 175 held that where the acquittal is for want of any evidence to prove the criminal charge, mere mention of "benefit of doubt" by a criminal court is superfluous and baseless and such an acquittal is an "honourable acquittal". Another Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Shashi kumari vs. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam 2005 (1) ATJ 154 has taken the same view. The instant case, however, appears to be on a better footing. Thus, we have no hesitation in arriving at a conclusion that exception (a) to the prohibition was not attracted in the present case......"
16. Having regard to the Full Bench decision of this Tribunal in Sukhdev Singh (supra), as also the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in George N.S. (supra), we are of the considered view that the issue raised before us is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions and we do not see any reason not to follow the ratio laid down in those decisions.
(OA No.2260/2016) (17)
17. The learned counsel for the respondents draws our attention to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.23631/2008 in Union of India and others Vs. P. Gunasekaran. Our attention is drawn to para 13, which reads as follows :-
"13. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re- appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re- appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
a. The enquiry is held by a competent authority. b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(OA No.2260/2016) (18) i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i). re-appreciate 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;
(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."
18. Stress is laid by the learned counsel on Para 19 of the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was held as under :-
"19. Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent lacked integrity. No doubt, there are no measurable standards as to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment. Integrity according to Oxford dictionary is "moral uprightness; honesty". It takes in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence (OA No.2260/2016) (19) etc. In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values."
19. Drawing upon the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned counsel submits that the Tribunal should not act as an appellate authority in the matters pertaining to disciplinary proceedings, when competent authority has arrived at the decision following due procedure and the instant case does not call for any interference by the Tribunal. However, the cited judgment also mentions that it is incumbent upon the courts to see, if the finding of the facts is based on no evidence. In the light of above discussion, we find that this is a case of no evidence which the Tribunal should not overlook.
20. In the result, for the forgoing reasons, following the ratio laid down by this Tribunal in Sukh Dev Singh (supra) and by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in George N.S. (supra) we allow the instant OA. The impugned orders dated 27.02.2015 and 08.12.2015 are set aside. The applicant shall be entitled for all consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject. These directions shall be complied with by the respondents within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(OA No.2260/2016) (20)
21. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
22. Pending MA(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R.N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /kdr/