Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Satish Kumar vs Comm. Of Police on 30 April, 2026
1
Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.3254/2016
Order reserved on 15.04.2026
Order pronounced on 30.04.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
1. H.Const. Satish Kumar, Age-46+ years,
S/o Sh. B.K. Lal,
R/o A-10, Police Quarter,
Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi-110088
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCTD through
The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
A-Wing, 5th Floor,
Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi-110113
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police,
PHQ, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
3. The Joint Commissioner of Police,
Northern Range,
Through Delhi Police,
The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, MSO Building,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi
4. The Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I,
Outer District,
SNEHA 2026.05.04
MEENA 11:05:33+05'30'
2
Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016
Through
The Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police,
Police Headquarters, MSO Building,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar)
SNEHA 2026.05.04
MEENA 11:05:33+05'30'
3
Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
In the present Original Application (OA) filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"To set aside the disagreement note dated 23.11.15, order dated 20.01.2016 whereby the punishment a of withholding of next period of one year with increment for cumulative effect is being imposed upon the applicant, order dated 06.06.2016 whereby the statutory appeal of the applicant has been rejected and to further direct the respondent that withholding increment be restored as it was never withholding with all consequential benefits including seniority & promotion and pay & allowances.
ii) To set aside the order of initiation of D.E.
iii) To quash and setaside the order whereby the name of the applicant has been kept in Secret list of doubtful integrity and to further direct the respondents to remove the name of the applicant from secret list of doubtful integrity from the date of inception.
Or/and
iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also awarded to the applicant."
2. The present Original Application is directed against the disagreement note issued by the competent disciplinary authority, which was initiated by the respondents. The challenge is to the disagreement note issued by the disciplinary authority, as well as to the order passed by the SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 4 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016 disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, which are the subject matter of challenge in the present OA.
3. Narrating the brief facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the disagreement note has been prepared and issued in a prejudicial manner. It is contended that the language of the disagreement note clearly reflects that the same has been issued on the basis of a pre- judged and preconceived conclusion that the applicant is at fault and guilty. He would submit that the language used therein gives the effect of a cautious but predetermined mindset on the part of the disciplinary authority to impose a penalty. 3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a departmental enquiry was initiated against him, , under the provisions of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, vide order dated 24.06.2013. The enquiry arises out of allegations that on 18.01.2010, a sting operation was conducted by the Vigilance Branch of Delhi Police regarding illegal extraction of soil by certain SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 5 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016 persons in connivance with local police officials in the area of DSIIDC, Bawana. It is alleged that in the video recording of the sting operation, the applicant was seen and heard talking to certain persons, including Sh. Naveen Kumar (informer), and that towards the end of the operation, he accepted ₹1000/- from the said Naveen Kumar and kept the same in the pocket of his uniform jacket. 3.2 Learned counsel further stated that FIR No. 34/2010 dated 19.03.2010 under Sections 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered at PS Crime Branch, and the applicant was arrested on 30.06.2010 in connection with the said case. 3.2 The applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 08.04.2010 in connection with the said misconduct and was also deemed to be under suspension w.e.f. 30.06.2010 due to his arrest in the aforesaid criminal case.
3.3 Thereafter, in the departmental proceedings, the applicant was reinstated vide order dated 17.03.2011; however, he continued to remain under SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 6 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016 suspension in the criminal case. Subsequently, he was also reinstated in the criminal case vide order dated 05.08.2013, without prejudice to the pending criminal case and departmental enquiry. 3.4 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the departmental enquiry was initially entrusted to Inspr. Vivekanand, then Inv./PS Bawana, and subsequently to Inspr. Jorawar Singh, then Inv./PS Prashant Vihar, vide order dated 19.07.2013. The Enquiry Officer prepared the summary of allegations, list of witnesses, and list of relied upon documents, which were served upon the applicant on 20.09.2013. The applicant denied the allegations and opted to contest the proceedings. He was permitted to engage Sh. Ram Kishan (Retired ACP/Delhi Police) as his defence assistant. Thereafter, 12 prosecution witnesses were examined, and the applicant availed the opportunity to cross-examine 07 witnesses through his defence assistant.
3.5 Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that upon transfer of Inspr. Jorawar SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 7 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016 Singh, the enquiry was entrusted to Inspr. Rajbir Singh vide order dated 25.11.2014, and thereafter to Inspr. Sanjeev Kumar vide order dated 22.12.2014, who examined the last witness (PW-13). Although an opportunity to cross-examine this witness was granted, the applicant did not avail the same.
3.6 After completion of prosecution evidence, the charge was framed and approved by the disciplinary authority on 30.07.2015. Thereafter, the enquiry was again transferred to Inspr. Ghanshyam Meena vide order dated 24.08.2015. The charge was served upon the applicant on 06.09.2015, which he denied. The applicant did not produce any defence witnesses but submitted his written defence statement. Upon completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer concluded that the charges against the applicant were not proved.
3.7 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the disciplinary authority, however, disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on several grounds, inter alia:
SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 8 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016 That the CD on record allegedly shows the applicant receiving money from Sh. Naveen Kumar (PW-11).
That PW-11, in his statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C dated 26.04.2010 and 22.06.2010, had stated that he paid ₹1000/- to the applicant and identified him in the CD, but later resiled during departmental proceedings, allegedly having been won over.
That PW-10, Sh. Naimuddin Malik, also initially supported the prosecution in his statement dated 13.04.2010 but resiled during enquiry proceedings.
That PW-07, Sh. Ravinder, supported the version that a sting operation was conducted at DSIIDC Bawana wherein a constable was seen accepting ₹1000/-.
That PW-12, Sh. Subhash Tandon, ACP and Investigating Officer, proved the CD (Ex. PW- 12/A), arrested the applicant, and recorded statements of witnesses.
SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 9 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016 That although the applicant was acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment dated 11.03.2015, such acquittal was on account of hostility of witnesses and not on merits, and that departmental proceedings are governed by the standard of preponderance of probabilities. 3.8 Learned counsel further submitted that the disciplinary authority issued a tentative disagreement note dated 23.11.2015, along with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, directing the applicant to submit his representation within 15 days. The applicant was also called upon to show cause as to why the period of suspension from 08.04.2010 to 04.08.2013 should not be treated as "Not Spent on Duty". The applicant received the same on 01.12.2015 and submitted his detailed representation on 16.12.2015.
3.9 Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the following case laws to buttress his arguments:
SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 10 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016
(i) OA No. 66/2015 titled Ct. Mohd. Ibrahim vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., decided on 23.06.2020 by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal;
(ii) W.P. (C) No. 16815/2024 titled Delhi Police & Ors. vs. Krishan Kumar, decided on 12.12.2024 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi;
(iii) W.P. (C) No. 12533/2024 titled Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. vs. Satyapal Singh Yadav, decided on 28.01.2025 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi; and
(iv) W.P. (C) No. 4808/2018 titled Union of India & Ors. vs. Ravi Shankar Kumar Sinha, decided on 06.03.2025 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the grant of relief and relies upon the averments contained in the counter affidavit, justifying the action of issuance of the disagreement note as well as the penalty imposed upon the applicant. It has further been urged that the standard of proof in criminal proceedings is altogether different from departmental proceedings, SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 11 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016 which are independent in nature. The same are not to be construed as dependent upon each other and are to be examined within the framework of departmental proceedings.
4.1 Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the disciplinary authority is not expected to be well-versed in legal drafting, and the language employed is not material; rather, what is material is whether the allegations are substantiated by evidence. It is argued that the disagreement note does not violate the principles of natural justice and is in consonance with law. 4.2 Learned counsel also submitted that merely because the applicant has been acquitted in the criminal trial does not ipso facto mean that the respondents are remediless or cannot proceed with departmental proceedings. Accordingly, it is submitted that the OA is liable to be dismissed.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 12 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016
6. Analysis:-
6.1 The disagreement note dated 23.11.2015 is reproduced hereunder:
"Subject :- Regarding D.E. against HC Satish Kumar, No. 364/OD.
A regular DE was initiated against HC Satish Kumar, No. 364/OD (PIS No.28891733) vide this office order No. 8571-90/HAP/OD(P-I) dated 24.06.2013. The Enquiry Officer, Inspr. Ghanshyam Meena, Inv./North Rohini completed the DE and submitted his findings concluding therein that the charge framed and served upon HC Satish Kumar, No. 364/OD has not been proved during the course of DE proceedings.
I have gone through the findings of the E.O. as well as record available on the DE file. Tentatively do not agree with the findings of the E.O. on the following counts as there is sufficient evidence against HC Satish Kumar, No. 364/OD on
1. I have seen the CD available on DE file, which is material evidence against HC Satish Kumar, No. 364/OD. In the CD, the HC is clearly visible and he is seen receiving money from Sh. Naveen Kumar (PW-
11).
2. Sh. Naveen Kumar (examined as PW-11 during the DE proceedings) has clearly stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the I.O. of the case on 26.04.2010 and 22.06.2010 that on the demand of HC Satish Kumar, he had given him a 1000 rupee note and he also identified HC Satish Kumar in the CD. But during DE proceedings, this PW has resiled from his earlier statements. Thus, it is clear that the delinquent HC succeeded in wining over this PW during DE proceedings.
3. Sh. Naimuddin Malik (examined as PW-10 during the DE proceedings) has clearly stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the I.O. of the case on 13.04.2010 that Sh. Naveen had given a 1000 rupee note to a police man who was in police uniform and the sting of this incident was conducted by him. But during DE proceedings, this PW has resiled from his earlier statements. Thus, the delinquent HC succeeded in wining over this PW during DE proceedings.
SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 13 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016
4. Sh. Ravinder (examined as PW-07 during the DE proceedings) has clearly stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the 1.0. of the case on 13.04.2010 as well as his statement recorded during DE proceedings that he alongwith Inspr. Shashi Sharma, Naveen and Naimuddin had visited DSIIDC Bawana area in a private car from where Naim and Naveen made a sting operation wherein one Constable is seen accepting Rs. 1000/-.
5. Sh. Subhash Tandon, ACP (examined as PW-12 during the DE proceedings & 1.0. of case FIR No. 34/10, PS Crime Branch) has proved the CD which has been exhibited as PW-12/A. During the course of investigation, he had arrested HC Satish Kumar and also recorded the statements and supplementary statements of witnesses and on his transfer, he had handed over the case file to ACP Special Team, Prashant Vihar Crime Branch on 07.12.2010.
6. Although, the delinquent HC has been acquitted in the criminal case vide judgement dated 11.03.2015 but his acquittal is not honourable but due to hostility of main witnesses before the Hon'ble Court. The criminal proceedings and proceedings in departmental enquiry are quite distinct and different. In criminal proceedings, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to prove the charge, whereas in the departmental proceedings, the preponderance of probability is sufficient to prove the guilt of an erring official. 7
7. As such, keeping in view the above facts and discussion, I am of the considered. opinion that HC Satish Kumar, No. 364/00 is guilty of the charge framed against him.
Therefore, a copy of this disagreement notice together with a copy of findings of the enquiry officer be delivered to HC Satish Kumar, No. 364/OD. If he wishes to make any representation or submission in response to disagreement notice, he may do so in writing to the undersigned within 15 days from the date of its receipt. Besides, he is also hereby called upon to show cause as to why his suspension period from 08.04.2010 to 04.08.2013 should not be decided as period not spent on duty. If the representation is not submitted within the stipulated period, it will be presumed that he has nothing to say in his defence and the matter will be decided on its merit."
SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 14 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016 6.2 On examining the disagreement note dated 23.11.2015, it is reflected that the findings recorded therein go beyond a tentative view. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of learned counsel for the applicant that while a tentative view is permissible, in the present case, the same has resulted in prejudging the issue. In terms of para 7 of the said disagreement note, it has been specifically observed that the applicant is "guilty of the charges framed against him," which is apparently in gross violation of the law settled by the catena of judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant.
6.3 It is further submitted that pursuant to the show cause notice, the applicant made a detailed representation, annexed as Annexure A-7 of the paper book, highlighting that after a detailed trial, the allegations levelled against the applicant in the criminal proceedings as well as in the departmental proceedings are one and the same, and the same have not been substantiated.
SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 15 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016 6.4 It was further urged that the holding of the inquiry and the issuance of the disagreement note, despite a clear-cut finding having been arrived at by the Inquiry Officer in favour of the applicant, coupled with the language employed in the disagreement note itself, reflects prejudging of the issue. Reference in this regard has been drawn to the written defence statement submitted by the applicant before the Enquiry Officer, the relevant extract whereof reads as under:
"It is further submitted with all due respect that in Point No.7, your kind honour has already held the applicant guilty of the charge, even without waiting for the reply in the representation of the applicant. It proved that your kind Honour has pre-judged and made-up mind to hold the applicant guilty of the charge without examining the reply applicant and hearing the applicant in the O.R. of the which shows the predetermined mind of your kind honour and it is totally against the principle of natural justice and Rules as laid down in Standing order No.A-20 (125/2010) revised in 2013 by Worthy C.P. Delhi."
6.5 It is also seen from the order passed by the disciplinary authority that the premises on which the impugned order dated 20.01.2016 has been passed are reproduced as under:
"....... Although, the charge framed against the delinquent HC could not be proved during the course of DE proceedings but the evidence/record placed on DE file clearly speaks that the delinquent HC is guilty of the charge. In the CD available on DE file, which is SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 16 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016 a material evidence, the delinquent HC is clearly visible and seen receiving money from Sh. Naveen Kumar (PW-11). Sh. Naveen Kumar (examined as PW- 11 during the DE proceedings) has clearly stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the I.O. of the case on 26.04.2010 and 22.06.2010 that on demand of the delinquent HC he had given him a 1000 rupee note to the delinquent HC and he also identified the delinquent HC seen in the CD. But during DE proceedings, this PW has resiled from his earlier statements. Sh. Naimuddin Malik (examined as PW-10 during the DE proceedings) has clearly stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the I.O. of the case on 13.04.2010 that Sh. Naveen had given a 1000 rupee note to a police man who was in police uniform and the sting of this incident was conducted by him. But during DE proceedings. this PW has also resiled from his' earlier statement. Sh. Ravinder (examined as PW-07 during the DE proceedings) has clearly stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the I.O. of the case on 13.04.2010 as well as his statement recorded during DE proceedings that he alongwith Inspr. Shashi Sharma, Naveen and Naimuddin had visited DSIIDC Bawana area in a private Car from where Naim and Naveen made a sting operation wherein one Constable is seen accepting Rs. 1000/-. Thus, it is clear that the delinquent HC succeded in wining over the above said PWs during DE proceedings. Besides, Sh. Subhash Tandon, ACP (examined as PW-12 during the DE proceedings & 1.0. of case FIR No. 34/10, PS Crime Branch) has proved the CD, which has been exhibited as PW-12/A: During the course of investigation, he had arrested HC Satish Kumar and also recorded the statements and supplementary statements of witnesses and on his transfer, he had handed over the case file to ACP Special Team, Prashant Vihar Crime Branch on 07.12.2010. However, the delinquent HC has been acquitted in the criminal case vide judgement dated 11.03.2015 but his acquittal is not honourable but due to hostility of main witnesses before the Hon'ble Court. Hence, from the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the delinquent HC is guilty of the charge framed against him for which he cannot be let off scot free but deserves punishment indeed keeping in view of his quantum of default.
Therefore, keeping in view the over all facts and circumstances of the case in its totality as discussed above and disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, I, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Addl. Dy.
SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 17 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016 Commissioner of Police (1), Outer Distt., Delhi do hereby award the punishment of withholding of next increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect to HC Satish Kumar, No. 364/OD, which will meet the ends of justice. His suspension period from 08.04.2010 to 04.08.2013 is decided as period 'Not Spent on Duty' for all intents & purposes."
6.6 It is further noticed that during the departmental inquiry, the submissions made by the applicant in his detailed representation, particularly with regard to prejudging of the case, have not been dealt with in the right perspective by the disciplinary authority. Even in the appeal, the appellate authority, while passing the impugned order, has not dealt with the grounds urged in the appeal.
6.7 The case of the respondent authority is primarily founded on the CD exhibited as PW-12/A, wherein the applicant is alleged to be visible receiving money from Shri Naveen Kumar. The said witness, in his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 26.04.2010 and 22.06.2010, has stated that he paid a sum of ₹1000/- to the applicant and has identified him in the CD. It has also been brought on record that illegal extraction of soil was being carried out in the area of DSIIDC, SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 18 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016 Bawana in alleged connivance with local police officials.
6.8 Having said so, we would like to observe that the following glaring infirmities in the evidence during the inquiry proceedings, which are also similar to the findings arrived at by the learned trial court while acquitting the applicant, can be noticed:
(i) The statement of PW-11, Mr. Navin Kumar, at whose instance the CD was prepared and who was the complainant and a material witness in the present case, was declared hostile. PW-11 made statements before the Inquiry Officer as reflected PW-11 statement, which do not support the case of the respondents.
"PW-11. Statement of Sh. Naveen Kumar s/o Sh. Mahender Singh r/o H.No. 340, Auchandi Road, Patashe Wali Gali, Village Bawana.
He deposed that he alongwith his family is residing at above mentioned address and having business of transport and agriculture. Long years back, one of his friends had told him that the policemen of the area are not allowing transportation of land without taking money and he had to fill land in his plot. This was the matter of 4-5 years back. He alongwith his friend Raju had gone to DSIIDC on his motorcycle and he did not find anyone there. After a few days, his friend again met him and reported the same matter. He advised him to go to the office of Vigilance branch in Police Bhawan at Asaf Ali Road. His friend Raju told him that he had made a complaint to Vigilance SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 19 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016 Branch. After few days, his friend Raju called him to come as the officials of Vigilance branch were reached. He was asked to reach near the Hospital at Village Pooth Khurd. He does not know the exact month, date & year. It was a matter of 4-5 years back. He had met the official of Vigilance branch but does not remember their names now. He had accompanied them in their Car to locate the area and concerned police officials. They went to the DSIIDC but no policeman was found there. They had a cup of tea and thereafter went to their homes. After few days, he and his friend Raju were again called in Vigilance office at Asaf Ali Road and showed them many photographs to identify the concerned police officials who demanded money from them. After seeing the photographs, he did not identify/recognize anyone and thereafter went to his home.
delinquent HC and he availed. The PW replied that he can read & write Hindi An opportunity to cross examine the PW was given to the properly. He further replied that it is incorrect that HC Satish Kumar, No. 364/OD, who is present during the DE proceedings, had taken Rs. 1,000/- from him and IO Sh. Subhash Tandon, ACP/Special Team, Crime Branch ever recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He further replied that he was never called by Subhash Tandon in his office at Prashant Vihar for any eriquiry. He was never showed any CD in the office of Crime Branch. He also replied that neither the Vigilance branch nor Crime branch had ever received any complaint from him.
On clarification by the EO, the PW replied that the statement given by him is without any fear and pressure. He also replied that he had never made any PCR call about illegal land extraction."
(ii) The statement of PW-12, Mr. Subhash Tandon, ACP Operations, was also taken on record. He deposed; however, in cross-examination, his testimony does not conclusively establish the allegations against the applicant.
"PW-12. Statement of Sh. Subhash Tandon, ACP/Operations, North District, Delhi.
SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 20 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016 He deposed that at present, he is posted as ACP/Operations in Nortn District. On 09.03.2010, a file bearing No. 27/PA/Addl. CP/Crime regarding illegal land extraction in the Bawana area alongwith one CD was received. The CD was played in the computer in his office and found containing recording of two audio-video sting operations therein. In another sting, the policemen and some civilians are seeing and talking about the transportation of land and in the last one policeman in uniform is seen taking one civilian to one side and demanded "Kharcha pani" and he is seen taking currency note and keeping it in his pocket. He made a rukka to this effect. Before preparing the rukka, he seized the said CD vide seizure memo which has been as Exb.PW- 12/A. A case FIR No. 34/10, PS Crime Branch was registered on the basis of rukka sent by him which is already marked as Exb.PW-2/A. The investigation was taken up by him. During investigation, he had collected the PCR calls related to theft of soil from Bawana DSIIDC area from the PCR office. In total 29 PCR calls were collected. The photocopies of the same have been marked at Exb.PW-12/B (page 1-29). SI Shyam Sunder had made the transcript of the sting in
07 pages as per his direction which is already marked as Exb.PW-5/A. During investigation, he had recorded statements of Naveen Kumar, Naimuddin Malik, Ravinder, SI Shyam Sunder, Inspector Shashi, Ct. Raman Kumar, Inspector Ram Avtar & Inspector Rajesh Kumar u/s 161 Cr.P.C. The statement and supplementary statement of Naveen Kumar was marked as Exb.PW-12/C while statement and supplementary statement of Naimuddin Malik have been marked as Exb.PW-12/D. The statement and supplementary statement of SI Shyam Sunder have been marked as Exb.PW-12/F whereas the statement of Sh. Ravinder is marked as Exb.PW-12/E. The statement of Inspector Shashi, Ct. Raman Kumar, Inspector Ram Avtar, Inspector Rajesh Kumar have been marked as Exb.PW-12/G to ) respectively. On 30.06.2010, HC Satish Kumar s/o Late Sh. Bhakkan was arrested through Arrest Memo and taken on police remand. The arrest memo is marked as Exb.PW-12/K. After PC remand, the voice sample and photographs and sealed CD were sent to FSL for expert opinion. During investigation, the reports were collected from concerned agencies and attached with the case file. On 07.12.2010, on his transfer, the file was handed over to the reader to ACP/Special Team, Prashant Vihar, Crime Branch.
SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 21 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016 An opportunity to cross examine the PW was given to the delinquent HC and he availed it. He replied that the file No. 27/PA/Addl. CP/Crime was received and it was related to the sting operation at the instance of Joint CP/Vigilance related to the above incident. There is a special mention about the receipt of above said file in the FIR. The contents of the file are not mentioned in the FIR. The case was registered after seeing the CD and not the report of Jt. CP/Vigilance. No record about the authenticity of CD was collected from any agency till the registration of the case. The opinion from FSL, Rohini was sought after registration of the case. The CD received was not having any seal of vigilance office and it was simply kept in an envelope. He also replied that no statements of either of the member of the sting party, member of public duly attested by Jt. CP/NR were received alongwith the report. He also stated that technically the original recording should also be available in the device from which original recording was made. He also replied that Naimuddin had stated in his statement about making the sting through his Spy Camera but he had not brought it and promised to produce it later on. He had requested Naimuddin to produce his Spy Camera many times but he did not produce it till the investigation remained with him by 07.12.2010 During investigation, he could not examine the local police officials to enquire about the PCR forms. He also told that so-far-as he recollects no government agency complaint about illegal extracting of land from their area. He also admitted that he sent the photographs of HC Satish to identify with the photos appearing in the CD for expert opinion. He also admitted that both the photos sent to FSL were clear and coloured.
In the meantime, E.O. Inspr. Jorawar Singh was transferred and on his transfer, the DE was entrusted to Inspr. Rajbir Singh, the then ATO/PS S.P. Badli vide order No. 19752/HAP/OD(P-I) dated 25.11.2014 but this E.O. was also transferred and the DE was entrusted to Inspr. Sanjeev Chahar, the then Investigation/PS S.B. Dairy for its further completion vide order No. 21208-09/HAP/OD(P-I) dated 22.12.2014, who examined and recorded the statement of last PW No. 13."
It is apparent from the statements of PW-11 and PW-12 that the respondents have failed to prove the SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 22 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016 evidence against the applicant, particularly with regard to the CD in question, which was the main basis of the disagreement note, alleging that the applicant was seen accepting the bribe.
(iii) Since the witnesses of the respondent authority turned hostile, the issue of effective cross- examination and leading of defence evidence on the part of the applicant does not arise.
(iv) It is also to be noticed that the incident pertains to the year 2010, wherein a trap operation was carried out by the respondents, on the basis of which an FIR was lodged, which ultimately resulted in the acquittal of the applicant. No appeal is stated to be pending against the said acquittal before any court of law.
(v) Further, it is pertinent to note that the applicant was initially placed under suspension vide order dated 08.04.2010 and was also implicated in a criminal case with effect from 30.06.2010. However, in the departmental proceedings, he came to be reinstated within a short span vide order dated SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 23 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016 17.03.2011, though he continued to remain under suspension in connection with the criminal case. Thereafter, he was again reinstated vide order dated 05.08.2013, without prejudice to the criminal case/departmental enquiry pending against him.
(vi) The final charge-sheet came to be issued on 06.09.2015, wherein the applicant pleaded not guilty. Notably, this was subsequent to his acquittal by the competent criminal court vide order dated 11.03.2015.
6.9 It is well settled in law that a disagreement note must be in consonance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and must reflect due application of mind, furnishing cogent reasons for differing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. In this regard, we draw reference to the decision rendered in Civil Appeal No. - of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 2111/2023), Durga Prasad Vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi, decided on 23.04.2025, reportable vide 2025 INSC 548 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 24 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016 "The aforesaid observations in the inquiry report would indicate that it was not a case where there was inaction on the part of the appellant in controlling the riots. Arrests were made, lathi-charge was done and firing was resorted to, though not to injure. Considering the limited force available, focus was on saving crucial installations and potential targets. The immediate senior of the appellant D L Kashyap, who appeared as a defence witness, stated that the appellant did a commendable job with the limited resources available with him. Importantly, this witness was also part of the team responsible for controlling riots but was not charge-sheeted. Therefore, the Inquiry Officer relied on his statement. Most importantly, there was no evidence to show that the force was sitting idle.
25. In the context of the detailed inquiry report, the disagreement note is cryptic and ignores vital aspects that were considered by the Inquiry Officer in his report, such as, (a) force was limited; (b) focus was on saving critical installations and potential targets; (c) firing was resorted to, though not to injure; (d) DW- 1, Charged Officer's immediate senior applauded the work of the Charged Officer under the circumstances;
and (e) 106 arrests were effected as borne out from hand written notes extracted from daily diaries.
26. Interestingly, the Disciplinary Authority in his disagreement note laid emphasis on what was not done, or what could have been done, namely, (a) entries were not made in the relevant diaries regarding announcement of prohibitory order; (b) no tear gas shells were used; (c) no injury caused to anyone in lathi-charge or police firing; (d) additional force not properly deployed; and (e) no preventive arrests effected between 31.10.1984 and 01.11.1984.
27. As regards observation of not making entries in relevant diaries regarding announcement of prohibitory orders, the statement of imputation in the context of that charge (i.e., charge no.3) makes no such allegation on the Charged Officer. Had there been a specific charge there could have been an explanation. May be such entries are made by different set of employees posted at the police station. Be that as it may, in absence of a specific imputation in respect of not making entries of public announcement of prohibitory orders in the diaries, in our view, adverse inference ought not to have been drawn against the appellant on that count, as the SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 25 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016 same would be beyond the scope of the charge (i.e, charge no.3) when read in conjunction with the statement of imputation.
28. Regarding non-use of tear gas shells, first there ought to have been evidence that they were available for use. Dissent note does not indicate presence of evidence in that regard. Therefore, in our view, dissent on that count is not warranted.
29. Absence of gunshot injury to any of the rioters, in our view, is not a ground to assume inaction on the part of the police force. Firing at mob has dangerous consequences. If shots are fired in air to disperse the crowd, the purpose stands served. Whereas firing at the crowd may not only injure the persons targeted but also several others who may be innocent. It is a matter of common knowledge that rifle bullets travel at a high velocity and may pierce the targeted person to strike unintended targets as well. Therefore, the plea of the Charged Officer that shots were fired not with a view to injure but to disperse the mob, in our view, is a bona fide plea, which does not call for any adverse inference against him.
30. Regarding deployment of additional force, there is no evidence that such number of police personnel were to be deployed here and such number were to be deployed there. Inquiry Officer has observed that there was complete lack of evidence that police force was sitting idle and were not deployed. Importantly, the defence plea is that deployment of forces were at important Government installations and at potential targets. Considering the scale at which riots broke out it is difficult to assume that with limited resources, as is found in the inquiry report, deployment of forces could be across the entire area under the command of the concerned police station. Therefore, in our view, dissent on this count also is unwarranted, particularly, in absence of evidence that police force was sitting idle with no deployment orders.
31. As regards allegation that no preventive arrests were made by the Charged Officer, suffice it to say that it is an allegation easy to make but difficult to prove. There is no evidence cited in the disagreement note that reports of a plan to indulge in rioting came to the knowledge of the Charged Officer but he took no preventive action. Admittedly, riots broke out suddenly as soon as information of assassination of the then Prime Minister spread. Thus, absence of SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 26 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016 preventive arrest is not a ground to believe that there was inaction on the part of the Charged Officer. Notably, as per observations in the inquiry report, arrests were effected. May not be by way of preventive measure but as a response to rioting.
32. Besides above, we note that the disciplinary proceeding against the appellant was initiated after 8 years of the incident when by that time the appellant had already earned his promotion. We are conscious of the law that promotion does not automatically wipe out any misconduct of a delinquent employee, particularly when it comes to light later. Here also, police personnel were put in the dock when a Committee, appointed later, reported laxity on the part of police in handling 1984 Riots. No doubt, misconduct may arise out of an act or an omission. Where it relates to an alleged omission, greater caution is required before putting an officer in the dock. In case of such nature, the disciplinary authority may also have to empathise with the situation in which the charged officer was placed at the relevant time. Because in hindsight it is easy to say that things could have been handled better if they had been done this way, or that way. But if this alone is taken as a basis to punish police personnel who, though may not have delivered the desired result, have done their best, commensurate to the resources available to them at the relevant time, grave injustice would be done. Instant case appears to be of that kind.
33. For all the reasons above, we are of the considered view that it would be too harsh upon the appellant to undergo a fresh exercise of disagreement note and consequential process, particularly when the incident is over 40 years old and the appellant has demitted office long time back.
34. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order of the High Court giving liberty to the disciplinary authority to issue a fresh disagreement note, and proceed accordingly, is set aside. The writ petition of the appellant stands allowed. The order of the High Court to the extent it quashed the order of punishment is affirmed. The appellant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including revision of pension, if any payable, accordingly."
SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 27 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016 6.10 Further, not only the aforesaid quoted decision relied upon by the applicant amply applies to the present case, reliance is also placed upon W.P.(C) 15193/2021 titled Ritu Ravi Prakash versus Union of India, decided on 20.11.2025 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
"42. In the present case, the language employed in the disagreement note leaves little doubt that the Disciplinary Authority had already formed a conclusive opinion on the petitioner's guilt. The note recorded that the Inquiry Officer relied on only the contentions of the petitioner and ignored all the documentary evidence in spite of "substantiated misdemeanor on part of the C.O.", a phrase that clearly conveys finality rather than tentativeness. Such pre-judgment renders the subsequent consideration of the petitioner's representation an empty formality. The process, therefore, stands vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguard embodied in Rule 15(2).
43. The decision of this Court in Rajpal Singh (supra); Satish Pal Singh (supra) and Sunil Kumar (supra), have consistently held that a disagreement note which embodies a final conclusion rather than a tentative view vitiates the disciplinary process, violates the principles of fair hearing.
44. The penalty imposed upon the petitioner, that is, reduction of pay by two stages for three years, with denial of increments and consequential effect on future progression, is manifestly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The allegations do not involve moral turpitude, corruption, financial irregularity, or any act prejudicial to the integrity of service. They stem entirely from the petitioner's effort to avail CCL for her minor daughters. The punishment, therefore, shocks the conscience of this Court and fails the test of proportionality as reiterated in Amandeep (supra).
45. Additionally, we also find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 28 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016 period of absence from 11.03.2014 to 08.08.2014 having been regularized as EOL, could not have then been made a subject of departmental proceedings.
The same would not be in consonance with the dicta of Bakshish Singh (supra).
46. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner suffered from procedural irregularities and substantive infirmities.
47. Accordingly, the Impugned penalty order dated 23.09.2019, as well as the Impugned order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal are set aside. The respondent is directed to restore the petitioner's pay and consequential service benefits within a period of eight weeks from the date of this Order.
48. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed. The pending application is disposed of."
7. Conclusion :-
7.1 In view of the above discussion, we find that the impugned disagreement note is unsustainable in law as it does not disclose proper reasons and reflects non-application of mind. Consequently, the order passed by the disciplinary authority, being based on such disagreement note, is liable to be set aside. The appellate order, affirming the same without independent application of mind, is also quashed.
7.2 The applicant shall be entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with law.
SNEHA 2026.05.04 MEENA 11:05:33+05'30' 29 Item No.51/ Court-IV O.A. No.3254/2016 7.3 Accordingly, the present Original Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 7.4 No orders as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sm/
SNEHA 2026.05.04
MEENA 11:05:33+05'30'