Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Raj Veer Singh vs Commissioner Of Police on 18 November, 2025
1
Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 1468/2025
Orders reserved on : 31.10.2025
Orders pronounced on : 18. 11.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Shri Raj Veer Singh,
S/o Shri Ram Murti Singh,
Age 54 year,
Working as Inspector,
Group-B,
Under Deputy Commissioner of Police,
West District, A-4C, Opposite-
Maharaja Suraj Mal Institute of
Technology, Janak Puri,
Delhi-110058,
R/o=C-300, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi-110018.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Manjeet Singh Reen)
Versus
Delhi Police & Others:
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police Headquarters,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
West District, New Delhi.
3. The Joint Commissioner of Police,
Western Range, New Delhi.
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Seema Grover)
2
Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
The instant OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -
"8.1.That this Honourable Tribunal may graciously be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 01.05.2024(ΑΝNEXURE A-1), order dated 13.7.2024(ANNEXURE A-2), and Appellate Authority order 29.3.2025 (ANNEXURE A-3), with all the consequential benefits.
8.2. That this Honourable Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow the present Original Application and direct the Respondents to restore back the pay of the applicant in it's original grade with all consequential benefits.
8.3. That this Honourable Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to produce all relevant records before this Hon'ble Tribunal in the interest of justice.
8.4. That any other or further relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicants."
FACTS OF THE CASE AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT
2. The applicant was initially appointed as Sub-Inspector through Staff Selection Commission, Delhi in the year 1994. Thereafter, the applicant was promoted as Inspector in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4800/-. 2.1. On 24.04.2024, a PCR call was received vide DD Nos. 132 A and 133 A at Police Station Moti Nagar, in which the call had mentioned regarding an incident of firing that allegedly took place at Dhauli Pyau. Thereafter, the respondents issued a Show-Cause Notice dated 01.05.2024 to the applicant to show cause as to why a 3 Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025 penalty of Censure should not be awarded to him. The applicant submitted his detailed representation against the Show Cause Notice (Annexure A-4) 2.2. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, according to the applicant without considering the reply vide order dated 13.07.2024 (Annexure A-2) confirmed the aforesaid punishment of Censure upon the applicant without dealing with the points raised by the applicant as not even a single point as raised in the reply is discussed in the said punishment order and no reasons have been recorded as to why the submission of the applicant could not be found worth consideration.
2.3. Being aggrieved, the applicant has submitted his appeal dated 11.08.2024 (Annexure A-5) against the aforesaid order of the disciplinary authority, however, according to the applicant, the appellate authority without considering the same vide order dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure A-3) rejected the same. Hence, this OA.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their reply affidavit opposing the claim of the applicant and the applicant has also filed his rejoinder. ARGUMENTS OF APPLICANT'S COUNSEL
4. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the respondents issued a Show Cause Notice dated 01.05.2024 (Annexure A-1) on 4 Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025 the allegation poor supervision of SHO/Vikaspuri, who failed to take action against such activity in his area. It has been observed that people consume liquor in public place and then after getting high, indulge into altercation and brawl. The incident of 24.04.2024 night that took near PVR Vikaspuri was also an example of this nuisance and thus there was lackadaisical approach on the part of the applicant.
4.1 Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant submitted his detailed representation against the Show Cause Notice dated 01.05.2024 giving reasons that he has been taking stringent and robust action against public drinking (action u/s 40A, persons arrested) and submitted the details of arrested persons during the year of 2023 and 2024 in his detailed reply. However, the Disciplinary authority without considering the reply of the applicant, vide their order dated 13.07.2024 confirmed the punishment of Censure upon the applicant without dealing with the points raised by the applicant.
4.2 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 01.05.2024 is bad in law for the reason that the respondents have mentioned the proposed penalty of Censure upon the applicant and same penalty was awarded by the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 13.7.2024, affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 5 Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025 29.3.2025 which are contrary to the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in matters of Lav Nigam versus Chairman & MD ITI Ltd and another reported in 2006(9) SCC 440 and Simens Versus State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2006(12) SCC 33 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajeshwar Singh Versus Union of India & Others in W.P No. 2040/2010 dated 25.03.2010. 4.3 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present impugned orders may be set-aside on the ground that the Appellate Authority, while affirming the penalty of Censure, observed in para- 6 of the impugned order dated 29.3.2025 that the enquiry revealed that a fracas had taken place in the compound of Vikas Puri PVR near the foods kiosks. He further submitted the respondents have conducted the enquiry behind the back of the applicant nor they called the applicant to confirm the actual truth in the enquiry nor they have provided any documents/statements of any persons recorded during the preliminary enquiry. This action of the respondents is contrary to the Rule 15(3) of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980, wherein they have decided that there shall be no bar to the Enquiry Officer bringing on record the any other documents from the file of the preliminary enquiry, if he considers it necessary after supplying copies to the accused officer.
6
Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025 4.4 Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that till
May 2024, 395 persons were arrested out of which 73 persons from the PVR complex itself, as compared to only 7 during the corresponding period in previous year near the kiosks and food joints. He stated that in the impugned orders not even a single point of defence raised through the reply to the Show Cause Notice is discussed or considered by the respondents in their punishment orders.
4.5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the punishment orders were passed in utter violation of Statutory Rule 6(ii) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. The statutory rule provides that punishment of Censure will be awarded only after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the subordinate.
REPLY OF THE RESPONDENTS
5. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that the applicant had acknowledged the punishment order on 19.07.2024 and he had submitted an appeal on 12.08.2024, vide which he had challenged the punishment order to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Western Range, Delhi (Appellate Authority) in the shape of an appeal. The reply filed by the applicant was not found convincing as after receiving of PCR Call of firing on 24.04.2024, the applicant was directed by the Disciplinary Authority multiple times to stop such 7 Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025 nuisance of consuming liquor in open area near PVR Theatre. Later on, after issuing a Show Cause Notice for Censure to the applicant on 01.05.2024, a surprise/random checking was also conducted by the Disciplinary Authority through Vigilance Branch/West District to verify the present status. The report and photographs submitted by the Vigilance Branch/West District on 24.06.2024 revealed that people were found drinking liquor in public place area near the PVR Cinema which shows that despite repeated directions, the applicant failed to follow the directions of his senior officers and fails to maintain law and order in his area.
5.1 Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted the PCR call was received vide DD No. 132A and 133A regarding incident of firing that took place at Dhauli Pyau. During enquiry, it was revealed that there was no incident of firing and it was a matter of altercation amongst some person. Further, in the enquiry it was revealed that near the PVR theatre many tables were placed in the public area and people assembled to enjoy the food there. The kiosk were also serving liquor with food surreptitiously and customers were consuming liquor in public place. This reflects the poor supervision/negligence on the part of the applicant who failed to take appropriate action against such unethical activities in his duty area. As such, people consume liquor in public place and then after getting high, indulge into altercation and brawl. The incident of 24.04.2024 night that took place near PVR Vikaspuri was also an 8 Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025 example of this nuisance. The above acts show that applicant failed to curb the drinking at public places in his duty area. 5.2. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that the appeal filed by the applicant against the punishment order was duly considered by the Appellate Authority and after considering the pleas taken by him, his appeal was rejected after considering the facts placed on record. Moreover, the Appellate order is self explanatory and well reasoned.
5.3. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S.R. Tewari Vs. Union of India and anr. Paras 15, 16, 17 and 22 of the judgment read as under:
"15. In Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2000. SC 801, this Court explaining the scope of judicial review held that the court must act with great caution and should exercise such power only in furtherance to public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court must always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not.
16. There may be a case where the holders of public offices have forgotten that the offices entrusted to them are a sacred trust and such offices are meant for use and not abuse. Where such trustees turn to dishonest means to gain an undue advantage, the scope of judicial review attains paramount importance.
17. The court must keep in mind that judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the evidence as an appellate authority. Thus, the court is devoid of the power to re- appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the proof of a particular charge, as the scope of judicial review is limited to the process of making the decision and not against the decision itself and in such a situation the court cannot arrive on its own independent finding.
..............9
Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025
22. The role of the court in the matter of departmental proceedings is very limited and the court cannot substitute its own views or findings by replacing the findings arrived at by the authority on detailed appreciation of the evidence on record. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference by the court is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. The court has to record reasons as to why the punishment is disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice."
REJOINDER OF THE APPLICANT
5. In the rejoinder, the applicant reiterated that the Appellate Authority dismissed his appeal without addressing the specific points raised by him. He further emphasized that none of the issues or grounds mentioned in his appeal were discussed or dealt with either in the appellate order or in the punishment order.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings on record.
ANALYSIS
7. On 24.04.2024, a PCR call was entered vide DD No. 132A and 133A at 22:50:59 hrs at PS Moti Nagar wherein an incident of firing was reported at Dhauli Pyau approximately 18 minutes before the call. Applicant was incharge of the Police Station. On 01.05.2024, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued to the applicant. The applicant submitted his reply to the SCN. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a punishment of Censure on 13.07.2024. An appeal was filed by the applicant on 11.08.2024 which was decided 10 Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025 was decided by the Appellate Authority on 23.03.2025. Aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority, the applicant filed the instant OA on 22.04.2025.
8. The Show Cause Notice dated 01.05.2024 (Annexure A-1) reads as under:
"SHOW CAUSE NOTICE *** A PCR Call was received vide DD No. 132A and 133A, dt. 24.04.2024 t 22:50:59 hrs. at P.S. Moti Nagar in which the caller had mentioned regarding an incident of firing that allegedly took place at Dhauli Pyau approx. 18 minutes before the call. After reporting above incident, the caller disconnected the phone. When the caller was called back, he did not pick up the call. Local police responded at the reported place of incident. The undersigned also reached at the spot.
During enquiry, it was revealed that there was no incident of firing and it was a matter of altercation amongst some persons. But, at the spot-which was near PVR theatre, it was seen that there were many tables placed in the public area and people assembled reported that the food joints and kiosk around serve liquor with food surreptitiously and customers consume liquor in public place. This reflects poor supervision of SHO/Vikaspuri, who failed to take action against such activity in his area. It has been observed that people consume liquor in public place and then after getting high, indulge into altercation and brawl. The incident of 24.04.2024 night that took place near PVR Vikaspuri was also an example of this nuisance. The above act shows lackadaisical approach of SHO/Vikaspuri towards taking action against public drinking in his area.
Therefore, Inspr. Rajveer Singh (SHO/Vikaspuri), No. D- 1/825, PIS No. 16940019, P.S. Vikaspuri is called upon to show cause as to why a penalty of Censure should not be awarded to him for the above said lapse. His written reply, if any, should reach to this office within 21 days from the date of its receipt, failing which it will be presumed that he has nothing to say in his defence and the matter will be decided ex-parte on merit.
sd/-
(VICHITRA VEER) IPS DY. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE WEST DISTT. NEW DELHI."11
Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025 8.1. The reply of the applicant to the above mentioned Show Cause Notice reads as under:
"Sir, It is requested that your good self has issued Show Cause Notice No. 7797-98/HAP (P-111) West Distt, dated 01.05.2024, mentioning therein "Whereas a PCR call was received vide DD No. 132A and 133A, dt. 24.04.2024 at 22:50:59 hrs. at P.S. Moti Nagar in which the caller had mentioned regarding an incident of firing that allegedly took place at Dhauli Pyau approx. 18 minutes before the call. After reporting above incident, the caller disconnected the phone. When the caller was called back, he did not pick up the call. Local police responded at the reported place of incident. The undersigned also reached at the spot.
During enquiry, it was revealed that there was no incident of firing and it was a matter of altercation among some persons. But, at the spot -which was near PVR theatre, it was seen that there were many tables placed in the public area and people assembled reported that the food joints and kiosk around serve liquor the food surreptitiously and customers consume liquor in public place. This reflects poor supervision of SHO/Vikaspuri, who failed to take action against such activity in his area. It has been observed that people consume liquor in public place and then after getting high, indulge into altercation and brawl. The incident of 24.04,2024 night that took place near PVR Vikaspuri was also an example of this nuisance. The above act shows lackadaisical approach of SHO/Vikaspuri towards taking action against public drinking in his area.
In this regard it is submitted that I have been taking stringent and robust action against public drinking (Action u/s 40A, Persons arrested). Your good self may like to have a glance at the following figure;-
Period Entire Police Station PVR Complex Beat no. 7 2023 037 07 1-1-23 to 31-5-23 2024 395 73 1-1-24 to 31-5-24 It is evident from the figures that there has been exponential increase in the action taken under the head in question. The stray incidents however will be taken care of in future. The staff in the beat and police station in general has been briefed in this regard. I also assure your good self that I will remain more careful and cautious in future. Keeping in view of the facts Show Cause Notice issued to me may kindly be filed/revoked or I may be allowed to appear in person to narrate the facts in detail.12
Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025
Inspr. Rajveer Singh
No.D-I/825
PIS No. 16940019."
8.2. After going through the reply of the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of Censure passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, West District, New Delhi reads as under:
"ORDER A Show Cause Notice for Censure was issued to Inspr. Rajveer Singh (SHO/Vikaspuri), No. D-I/825 vide this office No. 7797-98/HAP/(P-III)/West, dated 01.05.2024, on the allegation that a PCR Call was received vide DD No. 132A and 133A, dt. 24.04.2024 at 22:50:59 hrs at P.S. Vikas Puri in which the caller had mentioned regarding an incident of firing that allegedly took place at Dhauli Pyau approx. 18 minutes before the call. After reporting above incident, the caller disconnected the phone. When the caller was called back, he did not pick up the call. Local police responded at the reported place of incident. The undersigned also reached at the spot.
During enquiry, it was revealed that there was no incident of firing and it was a matter of altercation amongst some persons. But, at the spot which was near PVR theatre, it was seen that there were many tables placed in the public area and people assembled reported that the food joints and kiosk around serve liquor with food surreptitiously and customers consume liquor in public place. This reflects poor supervision of SHO/Vikaspuri, who failed to take action against such activity in his area. It has been observed that people consume liquor in public place and then after getting high, indulge into altercation and brawl. The incident of 24.04.2024 night that took place near PVR Vikaspuri was also an example of this nuisance. The above act shows lackadaisical approach of SHO/Vikaspuri towards taking action against public drinking in his area.
In response to the SCN, Inspr. Rajveer Singh (SHO/Vikaspuri), No. D-I/825 submitted his written reply. After due consideration, it reveals that mere data does not explain the facts that SHO/Vikaspuri has not been able to stop nuisance in the area and despite being directed multiple times, he failed to ensure effective action. Penalty of CENSURED confirmed.
Let a copy of this order be given to him free of cost. He can file an appeal against the order to the Appellate Authority within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order on a non- judicial stamp valued Rs. 00.75 by enclosing a copy of this order, if so he desire.13
Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025
sd/-
(Vichitra Veer) IPS
Dy. Commissioner of Police
West District, New Delhi"
8.3. Applicant made an appeal to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Western Range, New Delhi on 29.03.2025. Relevant portion of the appeal of the applicant reads as under:
"3. The mischievous rumour caught the attention of worth DCP West also who simply on the basis of maleficence issued a show cause notice for censure to the applicant giving a broad hint that the rumour has been taken as truthful. Applicant submitted a written reply to the show cause notice coupled with the data of action Police Station Vikas puri had taken against during 2023 and 2024 against such persons. Only till May 2024, 395 persons had been arrested and 73 persons from the PVR complex itself (as compared to only 7 during the corresponding period in previous year) i.e near to the kiosks and food joints. Disciplinary authority relied quite heavily on the unconfirmed rumour and did not repose faith in his subordinate who had solid grounds to rebut the rumour and also established on record that Police Station Vikas puri was already seized of the matter and enough. action had been taken in recent past and efforts were still on to control the problem. Copy of the data which applicant had enclosed with the written reply is enclosed with the appeal.
4. Applicant's only grievance is that award of punishment of censure is not likely to make me extra efficient but its after effects may dishearten the applicant and generate a feeling of broken heartedness. Such unreasonable punishments generates fear psychosis in the mind of subordinate due to which work performance is also affected. Every subordinate aspires to rise in service but unwarranted punishments shatter his hopes. Despair sets in the attitude the frightened subordinate and he starts thinking to give up. Unwarranted punishments based on SINGH REEN such information cause lot of desperation and hardly doany good to the police administration but its after effects culminate into serious emotional irremediable misfortune. Applicant is really in a state of shock because disciplinary authority charioted on a belief that SHO Vikas puri acts in a lackadaisical manner. The data presented by the applicant was based on police station record but in the opinion of disciplinary authority it carried deficient credibility as compared to the unconfirmed rumour.
5. The well acknowledged principle, as has often been repeated by Hon'ble Supreme Court is that authority concerned must deal with the points raised by the subordinate and record reasons clarifying the grounds due to which submission of the subordinate is found untenable.14
Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025
6. In applicant's punishment order not even a single point of defence raised through the reply to show cause notice is discussed in punishment order and no reason is recorded due to which submissions of the applicant could not be found worth consideration.
7. Hon'ble Supreme court in Raj Kishore Jha versus State of Bihar and Ors. And in Ram Phal Versus State of Haryana [2009-3-SCC-258] held.:
"Reason is the heart beat of every conclusion. Without the same, it becomes lifeless. We, find the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is a non-speaking and non-reasoned one."
in Jagdamba Devi Versus Hem Ram and Ors.
[2008-3-SCC-509] Hon'ble Supreme court held. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity.
8. In applicant's case punishment order was passed in utter violation of statutory Rule 6(ii) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980. The statutory rule provides that punishment of censure will be awarded onlyafter giving opportunity of personal hearing to the subordinate. IN reply to show cause notice applicant had specifically requested for the personal hearing but that too was turned down without recording proper reasons. Punishment order suffers from the serious lacuna that proper reasons were not recorded in the order.and Statutory Rule 6(ii) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980 is violated.
9. The punishment order has no merit to stand on its own legs. It is an impugne order that deserves to be annulled. Applicant will feel highly obliged if your good self go through the appeal personally and pass appropriate order quashing and setting aside the arbitrary order of punishment. Applicant had not committed any misconduct. Applicant will feel obliged if reasons are recorded in regard to acceptability or rejection. Also kindly hear the applicant in person.
Thanking you.
Yours faithfully sd/-
Inspr Rajveer Singh No D-1/825 SHOP.S Vikas puri Delhi."
15
Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025 8.4. The Appellate Authority passed an order dated 29.03.2025. Relevant portion of the order reads as under:
"I have carefully gone through the appeal, the impugned order and material available on record. I have also heard him in O.R. as per principles of natural justice. The appellant has pleaded that the person who had made the PCR calls had intentionally concealed his identity and preferred anonymity. The caller appeared to be conscious of the fact that giving sensational and false information to PCR may Invite trouble for him and that is why he switched off his phone.
The appellant has further pleaded that the call being sensational caused senior officers and local police to rush to the place, but no such incident was found at the place of Information. After giving this call the caller had switched of his phone and could not be Contacted despite best efforts. The enquiry revealed that a fracas had taken place in the Compound of Vikas puri PVR near the food kiosks. Some people annoyed with the food joints mischievously blurted that food joints serve liquor and customers consume liquor openly. The punishment has been awarded merely on the basis of unconfirmed PCR call because the person who had made the PCR call had intentionally concealed his identity and preferred anonymity. The appellant has further intimated that during the year of 2024 till May, total 395 persons were arrested out of which 73 persons were from the PVR complex itself near to kiosks and food joints.
The pleas taken by the appellant are not found convincing as after receiving of PCR Call of firing on 24.04.2024, the appellant was directed by the Disciplinary Authority multiple times to stop such nuisance of consuming liquor in open area near PCR Theatre.
Later after issuing a SCN for Censure to the appellant on 01.05.2024, a surprise checking was also got conducted by the Disciplinary Authority through Vigilance Branch through West District to verify the present status. The report and photographs submitted by Vigilance Branch/West District on 24.06.2024 revealed that people were found drinking in public place near PVR Cinema. This shows that despite repeated directions, the appellant failed to follow the directions of the senior officers.
In the light of overall facts and circumstances, I find no reason to disagree with the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority. As such I find no merit in the appeal and to interfere in the punishment order. Therefore, the instant appeal filed by the appellant against the punishment order is rejected.
Let the appellant be informed accordingly.
(Jatin Nariwal) IPS
16
Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025
Joint Commissioner of Police
Western Range, Delhi"
9. 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.
9.1. 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 v. 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.17
Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025 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) 9.2. 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;
(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."
9.3. 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: 18
Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025 (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 v. Mahesh Dahiya [H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya, (2017) 1 SCC 768 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] and recently by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pravin Kumar v. Union of India [Pravin Kumar v. Union of India, (2020) 9 SCC 471 : (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:
(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.19
Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025
(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) 9.4. 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;20
Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025
(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."
10. In the matter of Anjali v. State Bank of India (1994) 2 LLJ 312, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where serious and arguable points are raised in the appeal, the appellate authority is bound to apply his mind to all such points. In the matter of B. Vasantha Kumar v. Chairman, Kakatiya Grameena Bank (1995) 1 SLR 398, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no separate reasons are required to be given in the case of affirmance of the lower authority's order, there must be something to show that the appellate authority considered the real grounds urged.
11. The Statutory Rule 6(ii) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, mandates that punishment mentioned at Serial No. (viii) shall be called 'minor punishment' and may be awarded by the authorities specified in sub-section (i) of Section 21 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 after serving a show cause notice giving reasonable time to the defaulter and considering his written reply as well as oral deposition, if any, for which opportunity shall be afforded on request. However, despite the applicant's request for grant of personal hearing vide reply to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice as well as in his appeal, the applicant was not given 21 Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025 an opportunity of personal hearing, which is in violation of the aforementioned Rule.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oryx Fisheries (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 427 held that a quasi a quasi-judicial authority, while acting in exercise of its statutory power must act fairly and must act with an open mind while initiating a show-cause proceeding. The relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced below:
"24. This Court finds that there is a lot of substance in the aforesaid contention. It is well settled that a quasi-judicial authority, while acting in exercise of its statutory power must act fairly and must act with an open mind while initiating a show-cause proceeding. A show-cause proceeding is meant to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of making his objection against the proposed charges indicated in the notice.
25. Expressions like "a reasonable opportunity of making objection" or "a reasonable opportunity of defence" have come up for consideration before this Court in the context of several statutes. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Khem Chand v. Union of India, of course in the context of service jurisprudence, reiterated certain principles which are applicable in the present gcase also.
26. S.R. Das, C.J. speaking for the unanimous Constitution Bench in Khem Chand held that the concept of "reasonable opportunity" includes Various safeguards and one of them, in the words of the learned Chief Justice, is: (AIR p. 307, para 19) ................
31. It is of course true that the show-cause notice cannot be read hypertechnically and it is well settled that it is to be read reasonably. But one thing is clear that while reading a show-cause notice the person who is subject to it must get an impression that he will get an effective opportunity to rebut the allegations contained in the show-cause notice and prove his innocence. If on a reasonable reading of a show-cause notice a person of ordinary prudence gets the feeling that his reply to the show-cause notice will be an empty ceremony and he will merely knock his head against the impenetrable wall of prejudged opinion, such a show-22
Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025 cause notice does not commence a fair procedure especially when it is issued in a quasi-judicial proceeding under a statutory regulation which promises to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of defence."
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad, (1999) 8 SCC 266 : 1999 SCC OnLine SC 946 has emphasized that it is a well-settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
"17. In our opinion insofar as an election petition is concerned, proper presentation of an election petition in the Patna High Court can only be made in the manner prescribed by Rule 6 of Chapter XXI-E. No other mode of presentation of an election petition is envisaged under the Act or the rules there under and, therefore, an election petition could, under no circumstances, be presented to the Registrar to save the period of limitation. It is a well- settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. (See with advantage: Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor [(1935-36) 63 IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253 (II)] , Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. [AIR 1954 SC 322 : 1954 SCR 1098] , State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [AIR 1964 SC 358 : (1964) 1 SCWR 57] .) An election petition under the rules could only have been presented in the open court up to 16-5-1995 till 4.15 p.m. (working hours of the Court) in the manner prescribed by Rule 6 (supra) either to the Judge or the Bench as the case may be to save the period of limitation. That, however, was not done. However, we cannot ignore that the situation in the present case was not of the making of the appellant. Neither the Designated Election Judge before whom the election petition could be formally presented in the open court nor the Bench hearing civil applications and motions was admittedly available on 16-5-1995 after 3.15 p.m., after the obituary reference since admittedly the Chief Justice of the High Court had declared that "the Court shall not sit for the rest of the day" after 3.15 p.m. Law does not expect a party to do the impossible -- impossibilium nulla obligatio est -- as in the instant case, the election petition could not be filed on 16-5-1995 during the court hours, as for all intents and purposes, the Court was closed on 16-5-1995 after 3.15 p.m."23
Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025
(emphasis supplied)
14. We have examined the impugned orders dated 13.07.2024 (issued by the Disciplinary Authority) and 29.03.2025 (issued by the Appellate Authority) on the canons laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as referred to in paragraph 9 above. On careful perusal, we observe that while imposing the punishment, the Disciplinary Authority stated that the applicant was unable to prevent nuisance in the area and, despite being directed multiple times, failed to ensure effective action. However, not a single communication purportedly issued by the Disciplinary Authority to the applicant in this regard has been cited or produced by the respondents. It, thus, appears that a mere passing reference to such "multiple directions" has been made only to lend credibility to the allegation. Furthermore, the Appellate Authority, while considering the appeal, introduced new facts by stating that a surprise check was conducted by the Disciplinary Authority through the Vigilance Branch to verify the situation. This assertion finds a mention in the Show Cause Notice nor was mentioned in the Disciplinary Authority's order. Hence, it constitutes a new averment introduced at the appellate stage, on which the applicant was never given an opportunity to defend himself which is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
15. In view of the above, the OA is allowed with the following directions:24
Item No. 92/ Court-IV O.A. No. 1468/2025 i. The impugned order dated 01.05.2024 (ANNEXURE A-1), Disciplinary Authority's order dated 13.07.2024 (ANNEXURE A-2), and Appellate Authority's order 29.03.2025 (ANNEXURE A-3) are quashed and set aside.
ii. The respondents shall grant all the consequential benefits to the applicant within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
16. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of.
17. No order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /ks/