Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Manish Nagar vs Comm. Of Police on 1 April, 2026
1 O.A No. 171/2016
Item 32 (C-3)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 171/2016
Reserved on : 18.02.2026
Pronounced on : 01.04.2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Const. Manish Nagar
S/o Bhoop Singh
R/o Village & P.O Achheja
Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.203207
(Aged about 29 Years)
(Constable of Delhi Police) ......Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
Vs.
1. The Commissioner of Police
PHQ MSO Building
IP Estate, New Delhi
2. The Joint Commissioner of Police
South-Eastern Range
PHQ MSO Building
IP Estate, New Delhi
3. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police
South-East District
P.S. Sarita Vihar
New Delhi
4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police
(Vigilance) 7th floor, Police Station,
Barakhamba Road, Delhi ....Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Leelawati Suman with Mr. Nitesh Tiwari, Mr. Akash and Mr.
Archit Gupta)
2026.04.07
MAYA B TARAGI 17:08:14
+05'30'
2 O.A No. 171/2016
Item 32 (C-3)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :
The instant OA has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :-
"(a) quash and set aside the impugned orders placed at Annexure A1,A/2, A/3 and A/4
(b) award all consequential benefits.
(c) pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicant is that the applicant has been working as a Constable in Delhi Police and while posted as Naib Court in Saket Court, he was placed under suspension on 14.11.2013 on allegations of negligence. It was alleged that he failed to properly handle an anticipatory bail application filed by Ex. HC Amit Tomar and did not inform the concerned Investigating Officer (IO) about the same. Due to this, the accused obtained interim protection from the Court. Pursuant to which, a Show Cause Notice was issued to him on 10.12.20213 and thereafter a regular departmental enquiry was initiated. During the inquiry the applicant submitted his reply on 30.12.2013 and stated that as per usual practice, the bail application was kept on the table of the Public Prosecutor for collection by the concerned Naib Court of the Crime Branch and it was not his duty to inform the IO. He further stated that there were no clear or codified instructions assigning such duty to him. Despite this, the Inquiry Officer held the charges proved and the Disciplinary Authority imposed a major penalty of forfeiture of two years of approved service with 2026.04.07 MAYA B TARAGI 17:08:14 +05'30' 3 O.A No. 171/2016 Item 32 (C-3) reduction in pay on 17.10.2014 and treated the suspension period as not spent on duty. On 24.11.2014 the applicant's name was also placed in the secret list of doubtful integrity. Thereafter the appeal filed by the applicant in this regard was also rejected on 11.02.2005. The applicant has challenged these orders before the Tribunal on the ground that the penalty is illegal, arbitrary and based on mere negligence, which does not amount to misconduct. He contended that the duty to inform the IO was not assigned to him and that the responsibility lay with the Naib Courts of the concerned unit. He also submitted that the enquiry was not conducted properly, relevant evidence was not considered, and the orders passed are unreasoned and arbitrary. Therefore, he has prayed for quashing of the impugned orders and grant of all consequential benefits.
3. The counsel of the applicant argued assiduously on the following grounds :-
"A. The impugned actions/orders of the respondents are absolutely illegal, unfounded and arbitrary hence liable to be set aside.
B. The allegations against the applicants are of negligence. It is submitted that mere negligence is not a misconduct. Nobody can be expected to have 100% efficiency. There is no allegation of any ulterior motive or connivance of the applicant. The applicant had no intention to help to the accused of the said case. Even as per the allegations, the bail application is alleged to be kept by the applicant at the table of the APP, in routine. It is submitted that there are no codified instructions on the subject. Nobody knows as to in which matters the Department may be having special interests to oppose the anticipatory bail application. The applicant did what was the routine. Hence the allegations do not constitute misconduct at all.
C. The precondition to prove the allegations "negligence of duty is to prove the duty. In the present case it has not been said or proved against the applicant that it was his duty to inform the IO. Hence the applicant has been wrongly punished.
2026.04.07 MAYA B TARAGI 17:08:14 +05'30' 4 O.A No. 171/2016 Item 32 (C-3) D. Even as per the evidence led by the Department, to inform the IO, was the duty of the two Naib Courts deputed from the Crime Branch and they are deputed to the Courts only for the purposes of collecting information and other documents including bail applications from the concerned Court/public prosecutor. It is their duty to take further steps for the necessary co-ordination between the IO and the APP. Instead of visiting the Court daily, they appear to have made an arrangement with the Naib Court namely, Manoj for having information telephonically. The applicant cannot punished. In fact, the lapse or dereliction of duty is of the said two Naib Courts who were deputed/attached from the Crime Branch and not of the applicant. Interestingly they were made PWs.
E. The Enquiry Officer has failed to consider the entire evidence as is evident from the Enquiry Report. The Enquiry Officer has only recorded the factum of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and omitted to record the contents or the Statements recorded during the cross examination. This has further led to non consideration of the deposition brought on record by way of cross examination F. The Enquiry Officer has further failed to consider the defence statement submitted by the applicant A perusal of the Enquiry Report sufficiently shows that even though some statements made by the applicant in this defence have been mentioned, however, there is no discussion on the same. It is further relevant to point out here that the Enquiry Officer has failed to discuss the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and rather recorded his findings and conclusions in an abrupt and cryptic manner. Hence the Enquiry Report is liable to the set aside.
G. None of the authorities have considered the entire material on the record and have proceeded to penalize to the applicant in an arbitrary manner.
H. The impugned penalty order as well as of the appellate order are unreasoned and cryptic.
I. The name of the applicant has wrongly been brought on the secret list of doubtful integrity."
4. To strengthen his arguments, counsel for the applicant handed across the Bar a copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India & Others vs. J. Ahmed, Civil Appeal No.2152 of 1969 dated 07.03.1979.
2026.04.07 MAYA B TARAGI 17:08:14 +05'30' 5 O.A No. 171/2016 Item 32 (C-3)
5. Per contra, the counsel of the respondents vehemently opposed the OA as well as arguments of the counsel of the applicant and argued vociferously that although the applicant submitted his defence statement on 30.04.2014 however, he failed to produce any witness in his defence. Hence, the inquiry proceedings were completed concluding that the charges levelled against him were proved beyond doubt. Moreover, the applicant was also given opportunity of being heard. It was only after considering all the material available on record as well as after hearing the applicant personally that the applicant did not take the matter seriously and had negligently put up the anticipatory bail application of one Ex- HC Amit Tomar on the table of the Public Prosecutor in the Court and presumed that the concerned IO would collect it from there. Moreover, he failed to inform the concerned IO or any other person about the anticipatory bail application due to which Amit Tomar succeeded in obtaining bail from the Court due to absence of IO's report which was lying unattended on the table of the Public Prosecutor. Due to such negligent and careless behaviour of the applicant he was awarded major penalty as he could not perform his duty properly. Thus the counsel for the respondents prayed that as the arguments of counsel for the applicant are misconceived and the OA being devoid of merit should be dismissed.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions; examined the documents on record and perused the relevant judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court. As per the ratio given in the landmark Supreme Court Judgment in UOI & Ors. vs. J. Ahmed (1979) 2 SCC 286, it is a settled principle in administrative law and service jurisprudence that deficiencies in personal character or personal ability do not constitute misconduct for taking disciplinary proceedings-Negligence in performance of duty or inefficiency in discharge of duty are not acts of 2026.04.07 MAYA B TARAGI 17:08:14 +05'30' 6 O.A No. 171/2016 Item 32 (C-3) "commission or omission" under Rule 4 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules nor a failure to maintain "devotion to duty" under Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules - All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1954 - All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, Rules 3, 5,7- All India Services (Death- cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, Rule 16(2).
Vide para 9 of the Judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :-
".......... It is, however, difficult to believe that lack of efficiency, failure to attain the highest standard of administrative ability while holding a high post would themselves constitute misconduct. If it is so, every officer rated average would be guilty of misconduct. Charges in this case as stated earlier clearly indicate lack of efficiency, lack of foresight and indecisiveness as serious lapses on the part of the respondent. These deficiencies in personal character or personal ability would not constitute misconduct for the purpose of disciplinary proceeding."
7. We have observed that the applicant was inflicted with a major penalty of forfeiture of two years approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in pay on the ground that he did not show alacrity and urgency and did not hand over the case to Naib (Crime) and just placed it on the table of the Public Prosecutor. However, we have noted that there was no Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) prescribed for giving such cases straight to Naib (Crime) by bypassing the Public Prosecutor in case of urgency. In our considered opinion therefore the applicant showed no misconduct or negligence of duty in the discharge of his duties. Even if there is a whisper or whiff of negligence then it does not amount to misconduct as per the ratio extracted from the Judgment of UOI & Others vs. J. Ahmed (1979) (Supra).
2026.04.07 MAYA B TARAGI 17:08:14 +05'30' 7 O.A No. 171/2016 Item 32 (C-3)
8. It is a settled principle in administrative law and service jurisprudence that Courts and Tribunals in judicial review in Disciplinary cases seldom interfere in the decisions of Inquiry Officer / Disciplinary Authority / Appellate Authority. However in exceptional cases as per the ratio given in Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India - (1995) 6 SCC749, the Courts can always do a Judicial Review on the grounds of violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Disproportionality of punishment vis a vis the gravity of charges that shock the conscience of the Court.
9. In the light of the above we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for Judicial Review. The balance of convenience in the instant OA clearly lies with the applicant. The instant OA has merit; deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. We hereby quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 11.02.2015, 17.10.2014, 30.08.2014 and 24.11.2014 placed at Annexures A1, A2, A-3 and A-4 respectively. Consequently, the applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits arising therefrom, including restoration of his pay to the position prior to imposition of the penalty, along with all service benefits such as arrears of pay, increments, continuity of service and any other benefits admissible under the rules. The respondents are directed to give effect to this order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. MAs if any are also disposed of accordingly. However there shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/
2026.04.07
MAYA B TARAGI 17:08:14
+05'30'