PRAMODH KUMAR vs COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
Central Administrativ
ve Tribunal
New Delhi
Principal Bench, N
O.A. No. 2547/
/2022
Reserved on
: 30.09.2026
Pronounced on
n: 22.10.2026
Hon
Hon’
’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Membe
’ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Memb
er (J)
ber (A)
PRA
DEL
year
1/1,
Tanu
And
(Pre
Vika
AMODH KUMAR, SUB INSP. (
(EXE.)
5, Aged 44
LHI POLICE, PIS No. 16140335
rs, S/o Sh. Narayana Rao, R/o H.
.No. 16-1-
Road
Laxman Nagar, Undrajavaram R
uku: 534 211, West Godavari Di
dhra Pradesh, Group 'C'
istrict,
sently posted at III Battalion DA
aspuri, Delhi)
AP,
...Applicant
(App
licant in person)
Versus
COM
1. T
Delh
Sing
2. T
Man
1100
3. Th
Arm
MMISSIONER OF POLICE, DE
ELHI & OTHERS
The GNCT of Delhi (Through C
Commissioner of Police,
hi) Delhi Police Headquarters, N
gh Road, New Delhi-110001
New PHQ Building Jai
The Deputy Commissioner of
ndawali Fazalpur, Patparganj Ro
f Police, East District
ad, IP Extension, Delhi:
091
he Deputy Commissioner of Pol
med Police, Vikaspuri Delhi: 110
lice 3rd Battalion, Delhi
018
Page 1 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
4. T
Line
5. Th
Polic
6. Th
Polic
The Addl. Commissioner of Po
olice/AP-I New Police
110009
es, Kingsway Camp New Delhi-1
he Joint Commissioner of Police
ce Lines, Kingsway Camp Delhi
e/ Armed Police-II New
i: 110009
he Special Commissioner of Pol
ce Lines, Kingsway Camp New
lice, Armed police New
Delhi-110009
... Respondents .
(By
Bijendera Singh
Advocate: Mr.
Mr. Ranjit Singh )
h Sharma, Mr. Rahul Sharma,
---
Page 2 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, M
Member (J):-
In
n the present Original Applicatio
on, filed under Section 19 of
the Adm
ministrative Tribunals Act, 1985
, the applicant has prayed for
the follo
owing reliefs:
“
“i) To call for records of the case f
for just and fair adjudication of
th
he case.
ii)
) To quash and set aside the impug
gned suspension order No. 3389-
34
405/HAP(P-I)/East district dated
d 30.07.2019 of D.C.P./East
di
istrict, Delhi (Annexure-A1) & imp
pugned reinstatement order No.
55
504-16/HAP(P-I)/East district da
ated 15.11.2019 (Annexure-A2)
be
eing illegal, irrational, malafide an
nd invalid.
iii
i) To quash and set aside the orde
er of censure issued by DCP/3d
Bn
n.DAP, Vikaspuri, Delhi, vide
impugned order No. 2068-
82
2/HAP(P-III)/3rd Bn.DAP dated 31
1.03.2021 of D.C.P, 3d Bn.DAP,
D
Delhi (Annexure-A3) & the impug
gned appeal order No. 1852-
55
5/P.Sec./Addl.C.P./AP-I, Delhi, dat
ted 09.12.2021 of Addl.C.P/AP-I
(A
Annexure-A4) being illegal, irration
nal, in violation of principles of
na
atural justice, supersession of statu
utory rules and malafide.
iv)
v) To quash and set aside the o
order of major punishment of
fo
orfeiture of one year of approved s
service temporarily for a period
of
f one year entailing proportionate r
reduction in pay and suspension
pe
eriod from 29.07.2019 to 14.11.20
19 decided as period "not spent
on
n duty issued by DCP/3rd Bn
n.DAP, Vikaspuri, Delhi, vide
Im
mpugned order No. 4192-4212/H
/HAP(P-II)/3rd Bn.DAP dated
12
2.07.2021 of D.C.P, 3rd Bn.DAP
P, Delhi (Annexure-A5) & the
Page 3 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
im
mpugned appeal order No. 354-5
59/P.Sec/Joint CP/AP-II dated
12
2.04.2022 of Jt.C.P./AP-II (An
nnexure-A6) being arbitrary,
un
nreasonable, in violation of p
principles of natural justice,
su
upersession of statutory rules, and
d malafide, and to further direct
th
he respondents that the forfeited du
uration of service along with pay
sc
cale and increment be restored as
s it was never forfeited withall
co
onsequential benefits including se
ervice seniority & and pay &
al
llowances and also for any other pu
urpose relating to the service.
iv)
v) To issue direction /order for ta
aking appropriate departmental
ac
ction against the respondents who
discharged their quasi-judicial
fu
unctions with malafide intentions c
causing 'tremendous harassment
an
nd 'immeasurable anguish' to the ap
pplicant.
vi
ii) Direct to produce action taken r
report along with records of the
ca
ase from respondent No.1 w.r.t.
representation for redressal of
gr
rievances and subsequent reminde
ers thereof via Annexure A-9, A-
12
2, A-13, A-16 for perusal by this ho
on'ble tribunal.
vi
iii) Award cost of the proceedings a
and impose suitable costs on the
re
espondents to recompense for the in
njury suffered by the applicant.
ix)
x) To pass such other and further o
orders as deemed fit and proper
in
n the interest of justice.
x)
) To allow the O.A.”
2. The a
applicant, a Delhi Police officia
al, was initially suspended on
29.07.20
019, followed by initiation of de
epartmental enquiry in respect
of the a
allegations levelled against him
m. During the course of the
departm
mental proceedings, the applica
ant raised various objections
Page 4 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
regardin
ng non-supply of vital prosec
cution documents, improper
conduct
of the enquiry and alleged p
procedural irregularities. The
departm
mental enquiry ultimately culm
minated in an order dated
12.07.20
021 imposing the major punishm
ment of forfeiture of one year’s
approve
ed service temporarily for on
ne year, with consequential
reductio
on in pay, besides treating the su
uspension period as not spent
on duty
y. The applicant’s appeal again
nst the said punishment was
rejected
vide order dated 12.04.2022. A
Aggrieved by the suspension,
censure,
, departmental enquiry and the
e major punishment imposed
upon him
m, the applicant has filed the pr
resent O.A. seeking quashing
of the im
mpugned orders and consequenti
al reliefs.
2.1. Th
he applicant, who appeared in
n person, submitted that the
impugne
ed disciplinary proceedings and
the consequential punishment
are vitia
ated by a violation of the prin
nciples of natural justice and
procedu
ural irregularities. It was cont
tended that he was initially
suspend
ded without being formally in
nformed of the reasons for
suspensi
ion and that the departmen
ntal enquiry was thereafter
conduct
ed in an arbitrary manner, inclu
uding the non-supply of vital
prosecut
tion documents, the absence o
of the Presenting Officer at
material
l stages and denial of reasonab
ble opportunity to effectively
cross-ex
xamine the prosecution witnesses
s.
Page 5 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
2.2. The
e applicant further submitted tha
at the complainant himself had
prepared
d the misconduct report, the sum
mmary of allegations, and list
of witne
esses, thereby giving rise to a s
serious apprehension of bias,
and tha
at several material allegations
were not supported by the
prosecut
tion evidence. It was also argu
ued that the defence evidence
was im
mproperly closed and that the
e disciplinary and appellate
authoriti
ies failed to consider his
s specific objections and
represen
ntations. According to applicant,
, the punishment was founded
substant
tially on an alleged violation of
f suspension guidelines while
the othe
er material allegations stood di
isproved, and the subsequent
departm
mental and appellate orders w
were passed without proper
applicat
ion of mind. On these grounds,
, the applicant submitted that
the depa
artmental enquiry, the punishm
ment orders, and the appellate
order ar
e legally unsustainable and liabl
e to be quashed.
2.3. Th
he applicant drew our attention
to the impugned Order dated
12.04.20
022 (Annex. A6) rejecting the a
appeal of the applicant against
rd
er of DCP/3 Bn. DAP award
the orde
ding major punishment. The
relevant
t paras are reproduced as under:
“B
Brief-facts of the case are that
t a departmental enquiry was
in
nitiated against SI (Exe.) Pramodh
h Kumar, No. D/5326 (PIS No.
16
6140335) (here-in-after called the
appellant) vide order No. 5380-
98
8/HAP(P-I)/East District, dated 13
3.11.2019 on the allegations that
wh
hile posted at PS Mayur Vihar,
he had not finalized pending
Page 6 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
in
nvestigation cases even after provi
iding sufficient opportunities to
do
o the same in review of pending
investigation cases. Instead of
gi
iving satisfactory reason for del
lay, the delinquent SI replied
ad
dvertently and in undisciplined ma
anner. During scrutiny of 2 his
pe
ending investigation case files, sev
veral shortcomings were noticed
wh
hich he has done either intentio
onally or due to unwarranted
re
easons best known to him. The
following shortcomings were
no
oticed by ACP/Mayur Vihar:-
1.
Instructions of worthy Joint CP
P/ER to IO, in case FIR No.
14
42/2019 u/s 419/420/468/471/120-
-B IPC on 11.07.2019 have not
be
een complied with.
2.
Sl (Exe.) Pramodh Kumar, No.
D/5326 has prepared charge
sh
heet in case FIR No. 142/2017 u
u/s 363/366/364/354-A/506/509
IP
PC read with 10/12/21 POCSO
Act after keeping co-accused
G
Gulfam (as alleged by victim) in co
olumn No. 12 instead of column
No
No. 11 in spite of objections by Pro
osecution Branch and statement
of
f victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The same c
charge sheet was found removed
fro
om case file too.
3.
SI (Exe.) Pramodh Kumar, No. D/
/5326 has prepared cancellation
re
eport in case FIR No. 31/2019 u/s
s 420/406 IPC without verifying
do
ocuments and mode of transaction
of cash with complainant.
4.
Despite having knowledge of orig
ginal minutes register is already
un
nder police possession, he again ra
aised misdirected queries in case
FI
IR No. 165/2017 u/s 468/471/120-
-B IPC to school authorities to
un
nnecessarily linger on with the inve
estigation.
5.
He had submitted 29 case files t
to MHC(R)/PS Mayur Vihar on
29
9.07.2019 but on 31.07.2019, he h
has taken back 03 case files of
FI
IR No. 142/2017 142/2019 and 178
8/2019 from record room.
Page 7 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
6.
No case diaries were found attach
hed with case FIR No. 178/2019
an
nd 142/2019.”
2.4. The
e applicant further submitted tha
at the enquiry was tainted by
bias, rem
moval/absence of the Presenting
Officer, improper handling of
witnesse
es, and denial of defence eviden
nce, and that the Disciplinary
Authorit
ty imposed punishment despite
e the Enquiry Officer finding
the char
rges not proved. The applicant
t also challenged the censure
proceed
ings initiated during the pende
ency of the enquiry and the
appellat
e order as having been pa
assed mechanically without
indepen
dent application of mind.
3. Oppo
osing the grant of relief, learned
d counsel for the respondents
submitte
ed that the disciplinary action
was based on the material
availabl
e on record and that the applican
nt, despite being placed under
suspensi
ion, admittedly took back thr
ree case files for preparing
handing
g-over notes, thereby acting b
eyond his authority. It was
particula
arly contended that PW-9, Shri S
Saurabh Chandra, ACP/Mayur
Vihar,
was a material witness, who
se deposition supported the
allegatio
on regarding the case files; ho
owever, the Enquiry Officer
failed to
o properly evaluate and weigh h
his evidence. The Disciplinary
Authorit
ty, therefore, rightly disagreed
d with the Enquiry Officer’s
finding
and held the relevant charge p
proved, as the applicant had
admitted
dly taken back the files after his
s powers as IO had ceased. It
Page 8 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
was fur
rther submitted that the separat
te censure proceedings arose
from the
e applicant’s indisciplined and
insubordinate conduct during
the exam
mination of PW-9, for which the
e penalty of censure was duly
imposed
d and upheld in appeal.
3.1. Le
earned counsel for the responde
ents relied upon the statement
made by
y Prosecution Witness No.9, whi
ich reads as under :
“I
It is stated that at present I am po
osted as SDPO/Seelampur North
Ea
ast District and prior to my pos
sting of here, I was posted as
SD
DPO/Mayur Vihar. On 29/07/19, I
I had called SI Pramod Kumar
w
ith SHO/Mayur vihar and Insp/In
nv/Maayur Vihar with case file
16
65/17 along with the complainant
t Mr. V.B. Rai. SI Pramod was
as
sked to explain the reason for keep
ping it pending and as to why he
ha
as even after his repeatedly dire
ected from the undersigned to
ex
xpedite the investigation of this c
case and to get the signatures
ve
erified from F.S.L.; has ignored
the same and has misplaced
qu
ueries from school Management an
nd as to why he was demanding
su
uch documents which were either
already in police possession or
we
ere not even remotely associat
ted with the investigation. SI
Pr
ramod, inspite of giving reply in a
a proper/logical way, replied in
an
n adversary and undisciplined ma
anner and completely refused to
fo
ollow the legal directions of unde
ersigned in presence of SHO &
In
nsp.
Th
hereafter all the developments we
ere brought in the knowledge of
se
enior officers and he was placed
under suspension on 29/07/19.
Th
hereafter a misconduct report wa
as sent to DCP/East District on
01
1/08/19 in which the worthy D
CP ordered for Departmental
En
nquiry of SI Pramod. In the misco
onduct report, I had elaborated
Page 9 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
th
he shortcomings/discrepancies of
f case FIRs 142/17, 165/17,
14
42/19, 178/19 and 31/15. As in cas
se FIR No - 31/15, when he had
br
rought to undersigned, he had p
prepared a cancellation report
wh
hich was also corroborated in cas
e diary. but when the same case
fil
le was perused during the prepar
ration of misconduct report, the
ca
ancellation report was missing;
but the C.D wherein he had
wr
ritten that cancellation report has
been found prepared. Moreover
it
is pertinent to mention that he ha
ad prepared cancellation report
be
efore his suspension even with
hout verifying the receipt of
tra
ansaction. At the time of prepara
ation of misconduct report, the
M
MHC(R) informed me that SI Pram
mod had taken these case files
14
42/17, 142/15 and 178/19 on 3
31/07/19 for some hours and
th
hereafter he returned them back
k. The shortcomings noticed in
th
hese three case files have been elab
borated in my misconduct report.
M
Moreover in 142/19, even after the d
directions of worthy Jt.C.P/E.R,
he
e did not take adequate investigatio
on, as a result the case was kept
pe
ending and the senior citizen coup
ple were running pillar to post
ge
et their cheated money back whic
ch happened to be their lifetime
sa
aving and the money was urgently
y required by the elderly couple
fo
or medical treatment. Also in 142
2/17, he had made the accused
sp
pecifically pointed in statement u/s
164 by the prosecutrix as main
ac
ccused, in column no-12 even afte
er the repeated directions. It is
pe
ertinent to mention therein that 14
42/17 is one of the case files in
wh
hich he specifically mention in th
he C.D, Also FIR No 142/19,
17
78/19, no C.D was found at th
he time of preparation of the
m
isconduct report. My misconduct
t report dated 01.08.2019 was
sh
hown to me in the D.E file which
bears PW-9A. This is my true
sta
atement.”
3.2. The
e gist of the Written submissio
on dated 09.09.2026 filed on
behalf o
of the respondents is that the En
nquiry Officer, despite finding
Page 10 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
no incri
iminating evidence against the
applicant, failed to properly
apprecia
ate the material evidence, particu
ularly the deposition of PW-9,
a materi
ial witness. It was contended th
hat the applicant, after being
placed u
under suspension w.e.f. 29.07
.2019, admittedly took back
three ca
ase files pertaining to FIR No
os. 142/2017, 142/2019 and
178/201
9 on 31.07.2019, thereby ex
xercising the powers of an
Investig
gating Officer despite cessation
of such powers under Rule
26(3)(i)
of the Delhi Police (Punishmen
nt & Appeal) Rules, 1980 and
the rele
evant Standing Order. It is
further submitted that the
applican
nt’s plea that the files were take
en for preparing handing-over
notes wa
as not tenable, particularly in vi
ew of the deposition of PW-9
and the
absence of case diaries from
the files when subsequently
called fo
for. It was, therefore, argued th
hat the Disciplinary Authority
rightly d
disagreed with the findings of t
the Enquiry Officer, imposed
the pun
nishment vide order dated 20
0.07.2021, and the appellate
authority
y rightly dismissed the appeal.
4. In
n rejoinder to the arguments put
t forth by the learned counsel
for the r
respondents, the applicant relie
d upon the decision rendered
by the H
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi i
n W.P.(C) 11448/2025 dated
09.09.20
025 titled Manoj Kumar M. Thr
rough A.R. Ashish Dubey vs.
Union o
of India and Ors., and highlighte
ed the following paragraphs:
“1
11. As such, the ground on which
the suspension was extended on
Page 11 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
th
he second period of 90 days and t
the third period of 90 days was
er
rroneous, as there were no disc
ciplinary proceedings pending
ag
gainst the petitioner at that point of
f time.
12
2. Though Mr. Haseeb submits tha
at the original ground on which
th
he petitioner had been placed und
der suspension, which was that
di
isciplinary proceedings were co
ontemplated against petitioner
co
ontinues to apply, the extension
of suspension was not on the
gr
round that disciplinary procee
edings continued to remain
co
ontemplated, but that they were pen
nding, which is incorrect.
13
3. Even if this was an inadvertent e
error, the petitioner is entitled to
th
he benefit thereof. The legality of
f any executive action is to be
te
ested on the reasons adduced theref
efor. This has been the law since
Co
Commissioner of Police v Gordha
andas Bhanji, as cited in the
fo
ollowing famous passage from M
Mohinder Singh Gill v Chief
El
lection Commissioner":
"8. The second equally relevant
matter is that when a statutory
functionary makes an order b
based on certain grounds, its
validity must be judged by the re
easons so mentioned and cannot
be supplemented by fresh reaso
ons in the shape of affidavit or
otherwise. Otherwise, an order b
bad in the beginning may, by the
time it comes to court on account
t of a challenge, get validated by
additional grounds later broug
ght out. We may here draw
attention to the observations of B
Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji:
"Public orders, publicly m
made, in exercise of a statutory
authority cannot be constr
rued in the light of explanations
subsequently given by th
he officer making the order of
what he meant, or of wha
at was in his mind, or what he
intended to do. Public ord
ders made by public authorities
Page 12 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
are meant to have public
effect and are intended to affect
the actings and conduct
t of those to whom they are
addressed and must b
e construed objectively with
reference to the language
used in the order itself."
14
4. As such, solely on the ground tha
at first and second extensions of
su
uspension were on an a plainly fact
tually erroneous ground, we are
co
onstrained to set aside the order
rs dated 27 May 2025 and 22
Au
ugust 2025 whereby the petition
ner's suspension was extended
be
eyond 90 days. Consequences in la
aw would follow. The petitioner
einstated in service.”
wo
ould be entitled, therefore, to be re
5. H
Heard learned counsel for the re
espective parties and perused
the plead
dings available on record.
6. A
ANALYSIS :
6.1
The relevant extracts of
disagreement noted dated
22.06.20
021, reads as follows:
“5. He had submitted 29 case fil
les to MHC (R)/PS Mayur Vihar
on 29.07.2019 but on 31.07.2019
9, he has taken back 03 case files
of FIR No. 142/2017, 142/2019 a
and 178/2019 from record room.
6. No case diaries were found
d attached with case FIR No.
178/2019 and 142/2019.
…..
……The delinquent SI did no
ot admit the allegations and
preferred to defend his DE
himself. The Enquiry Officer
Page 13 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
proceeded further and examine
ed 08 PWs in the presence of
delinquent SI by giving him opp
portunity to cross examine the
PWs, which the delinquent SI ava
ailed. Further, statement of PW-
09 was recorded in the pre
esence of delinquent SI, but
opportunity to cross examine
the said PW was deferred.
Thereafter, the delinquent SI was
s transferred from this Battalion
to EOW and his DE files were s
sent to the office of DCP/EOW,
Delhi for taking further neces
ssary action. In between, the
delinquent SI was again transferr
red to 3rd Battalion and his DE
files were returned to this office
e without taking any action on
it.…
The undersigned has carefully g
gone through the entire DE file
containing deposition of PWs, Ex
xhibits, defense statement of the
delinquent as well as findings of
f the E.O. Tentatively, I do not
agree with the conclusion drawn
n by the E.O. in his findings for
the reasons that the Enquiry Offi
cer has not paid any heed to the
allegations that delinquent SI (Ex
Exe.) had submitted 29 case files
to MHC(R)/PS Mayur Vihar on
29.07.2019 but on 31.07.2019,
he has taken back 03 case files
of FIR No. 142/2017, 142/2019
and 178/2019 from record room,
whereas he was already placed
under suspension on 29.07.2019.
From the above facts, it is rev
ealed that the EO has left the
lacunae in his findings and fai
led to bring home the quilt of
delinquent SI, who took back 03-
-case-files-of FIR No. 142/2017,
142/2019 and 178/2019 from r
record room, whereas he was
under suspension, which is a clea
ar violation of Rule 26 (3) (1) of
Delhi Police (Punishment & A
Appeal) Rules-1980 as well as
standing instructions contained in
n S.O. 128/08.
Page 14 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
Delinquent SI (Exe.) Pramodh
Kumar, No. D/5326 (PIS No.
16140335) was placed under
suspension with effect from
29.07.2019 vide order No. 338
89-3405/HAP(P-I)/East District,
dated 30.07.2019. Later on, he w
was re-instated from suspension
with immediate effect vide ord
der No. 5504-16/HAP(P-I)/East
District, dated 15.11.2019. He is
also called upon to show cause
as to why his suspension period
from 29.07.2019 to 14.11.2019
should not be treated as "period
d not spent on duty" within 15
days from the date of receipt
of this communication, failing
which ex-parte decision will be ta
aken, on merits.”
6 . 2 A di
isagreement note cannot be emp
ployed as a means to cure the
deficien
ncies or fill the lacunae in the fin
ndings of the Enquiry Officer.
Nor can
n it substitute or supplant the c
conclusions arrived at in the
course o
of a duly conducted enquiry, pa
articularly where the evidence
has been
n examined and the witnesses h
have been subjected to cross-
examina
ation. Any disagreement must,
therefore, be founded on the
material
l already brought on record duri
ing the enquiry and cannot be
used to i
introduce or develop a fresh case
e against the delinquent.
6.3 The
mere fact that the applicant was
s placed under suspension, by
itself, ca
annot constitute a sufficient ba
sis for holding him culpable,
particula
arly when the very order of susp
pension is under challenge on
the grou
und that it was given retrospect
tive effect. Suspension, being
an inter
rim measure, cannot by itself
f be treated as evidence of
miscond
duct or guilt unless the alleg
ged misconduct is otherwise
Page 15 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
establish
hed on the basis of evidence
e brought on record in the
departm
mental enquiry.
6.4 The
rejection of the Enquiry Office
er’s report by the Disciplinary
Authorit
ty, by disagreeing with the fi
indings recorded therein and
proceed
ing to hold the charges proved, c
cannot be permitted to operate
as a pos
t-decisional hearing. Such an app
proach, in substance, deprives
the deli
inquent of a meaningful oppo
ortunity to meet the reasons
forming
g the basis of the adverse concl
lusion. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in
n Shekhar Ghosh v. Union of In
ndia & Ors., reported in 2007
(1) SCC
C (L&S) 247 , has deprecated the
resort to such post-decisional
hearings
s.
6.5
It is well settled in law that a
disagreement note must be in
consona
ance with the principles laid do
own by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court an
nd must reflect due application
n of mind, furnishing cogent
reasons
for differing with the findings o
of the Inquiry Officer. In this
regard,
we draw reference to the decis
sion rendered in Civil Appeal
No. – o
of 2025 (arising out of SLP
(C) No. 2111/2023), Durga
Prasad
Vs Govt. Of NCT Of Del
lhi , decided on 23.04.2025,
reportab
ble vide 2025 INSC 548 wherein
n the Hon’ble Apex Court has
observed
d as under:
“The aforesaid observations in th
he inquiry report would indicate
Page 16 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
that it was not a case where there
e was inaction on the part of the
appellant in controlling the rio
ots. Arrests were made, lathi-
charge was done and firing was r
resorted to, though not to injure.
Considering the limited force a
available, focus was on saving
crucial installations and potentia
al targets. The immediate senior
of the appellant D L Kashyap
p, who appeared as a defence
witness, stated that the appellant
did a commendable job with the
limited resources available with
h him. Importantly, this witness
was also part of the team respo
onsible for controlling riots but
was not charge-sheeted. Therefor
re, 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 i
inquiry report, the disagreement
note is cryptic and ignores vital a
aspects that were considered by
the Inquiry Officer in his report,
such as, (a) force was limited;
(b) focus was on saving critic
cal installations and potential
targets; (c) firing was resorted to
o, though not to injure; (d) DW-
1, Charged Officer’s immediate s
senior applauded the work of the
Charged Officer under the circu
umstances; and (e) 106 arrests
were effected as borne out from
m hand written notes extracted
from daily
diaries.
26. Interestingly, the Disciplinary
ry Authority in his disagreement
note laid emphasis on what was
s not done, or what could have
been done, namely, (a) entries
were not made in the relevant
diaries regarding announcemen
nt of prohibitory order; (b) no
tear gas shells were used; (c)
no injury caused to anyone in
lathi-charge or police firing; (d)
d) additional force not properly
deployed; and (e) no preven
ntive arrests effected between
31.10.1984 and 01.11.1984.
Page 17 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
27. As regards observation of
not making entries in relevant
diaries regarding announcemen
nt of prohibitory orders, the
statement of imputation in the con
ntext of that charge (i.e., charge
no.3) makes no such allegation
n on the Charged Officer. Had
there been a specific charge
e there could have been an
explanation. May be such entrie
es 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 proh
ibitory orders in the diaries, in
our view, adverse inference ou
ught not to have been drawn
against the appellant on that coun
nt, as the same would be beyond
the scope of the charge (i.e,
charge no.3) when read in
conjunction with the statement of
f imputation.
28. Regarding non-use of tear
gas shells, first there ought to
have been evidence that they wer
re available for use. Dissent note
does not indicate presence of evid
dence in that regard. Therefore,
in our view, dissent on that count
t is not warranted.
29. Absence of gunshot injury to
o any of the rioters, in our view,
is not a ground to assume inac
ction on the part of the police
force. Firing at mob has danger
rous consequences. If shots are
fired in air to disperse the crow
wd, the purpose stands served.
Whereas firing at the crowd m
ay not only injure the persons
targeted but also several others
s who may be innocent. It is a
matter of common knowledge th
hat rifle bullets travel at a high
velocity and may pierce the targe
eted person to strike unintended
targets as well. Therefore, the p
plea of the Charged Officer that
shots were fired not with a view
w to injure but to disperse the
mob, in our view, is a bona fide p
plea, which does not call for any
adverse inference against him.
Page 18 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
30. Regarding deployment of
additional force, there is no
evidence that such number of
f police personnel were to be
deployed here and such numbe
er were to be deployed there.
Inquiry Officer has observed th
hat there was complete lack of
evidence that police force was sit
tting idle and were not deployed.
Importantly, the defence plea is
that deployment of forces were
at important Government install
lations and at potential targets.
Considering the scale at which
riots broke out it is difficult to
assume that with limited resour
rces, as is found in the inquiry
report, deployment of forces co
ould be across the entire area
under the command of the conce
erned police station. Therefore,
in our view, dissent on this
count also is unwarranted,
particularly, in absence of eviden
nce that police force was sitting
idle with no deployment orders.
31. As regards allegation that n
o preventive arrests were made
by the Charged Officer, suffice i
it to say that it is an allegation
easy to make but difficult to prov
ve. There is no evidence cited in
the disagreement note that repor
rts of a plan to indulge in rioting
came to the knowledge of the C
Charged Officer but he took no
preventive action. Admittedly, ri
iots broke out suddenly as soon
as information of assassination
n of the then Prime Minister
spread. Thus, absence of preven
ntive arrest is not a ground to
believe that there was inaction
n on the part of the Charged
Officer. Notably, as per obser
rvations in the inquiry report,
arrests were effected. May not b
e by way of preventive measure
but as a response to rioting.
32. Besides above, we note th
at the disciplinary proceeding
against the appellant was initiat
ted after 8 years of the incident
when by that time the appel
llant had already earned his
promotion. We are conscious of
the law that promotion does not
Page 19 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
automatically wipe out any misco
onduct of a delinquent employee,
particularly when it comes to
light later. Here also, police
personnel were put in the dock
k when a Committee, appointed
later, reported laxity on the pa
art of police in handling 1984
Riots. No doubt, misconduct m
may arise out of an act or an
omission. Where it relates to
an alleged omission, greater
caution is required before putting
g an officer in the dock. In case
of such nature, the disciplinary
ry authority may also have to
empathise with the situation in
which the charged officer was
placed at the relevant time. Beca
ause in hindsight it is easy to say
that things could have been hand
dled better if they had been done
this way, or that way. But if th
his alone is taken as a basis to
punish police personnel who, tho
ough may not have delivered the
desired result, have done thei
ir best, commensurate to the
resources available to them at th
he relevant time, grave injustice
would be done. Instant case appe
ears to be of that kind.
33. For all the reasons above, we
e are of the considered view that
it would be too harsh upon the
e appellant to undergo a fresh
exercise of disagreement note
e and consequential process,
particularly when the incident
is over 40 years old and the
appellant has demitted office long
g time back.
34. The appeal is, therefore, al
llowed. The order of the High
Court giving liberty to the discip
plinary authority to issue a fresh
disagreement note, and proceed
d accordingly, is set aside. The
writ petition of the appellant sta
ands allowed. The order of the
High Court to the extent it quas
shed the order of punishment is
affirmed. The appellant shall b
be entitled to all consequential
benefits including revision of
of pension, if any payable,
accordingly.”
Page 20 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
6.6 Furth
her, not only the aforesaid quote
ed decision relied upon by the
applicant am
mply applies to the present case
e, reliance is also placed upon
W.P.(C) 15
5193/2021 titled Ritu Ravi Prak
kash versus Union of India,
decided on
20.11.2025 by the Hon’ble High
h Court of Delhi. The relevant
paras, reads
s as under:
“42. In the present case, th
e language employed in the
disagreement note leaves little
e doubt that the Disciplinary
Authority had already formed
a conclusive opinion on the
petitioner’s guilt. The note rec
orded that the Inquiry Officer
relied on only the contentions of
f 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
e petitioner’s representation an
empty formality. The process, the
erefore, stands vitiated for non-
compliance with the mandatory p
procedural safeguard embodied
in Rule 15(2).
43. The decision of this Court i
in Rajpal Singh (supra); Satish
Pal Singh (supra) and Sunil Ku
umar (supra), have consistently
held that a disagreement note wh
hich embodies a final conclusion
rather than a tentative view vi
tiates the disciplinary process,
violates the principles of fair hea
ring.
44. The penalty imposed upon the
e petitioner, that is, reduction of
pay by two stages for three years
s, with denial of increments and
consequential effect on futur
re progression, is manifestly
disproportionate to the alleged
misconduct. The allegations do
not involve moral turpitude, corr
ruption, financial irregularity, or
Page 21 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
any act prejudicial to the integri
ty of service. They stem entirely
from the petitioner’s effort to
o avail CCL for her minor
daughters. The punishment, ther
refore, shocks the conscience of
this Court and fails the test of p
proportionality as reiterated in
Amandeep (supra).
45. Additionally, we also find m
merit in the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner
r that the period of absence from
11.03.2014 to 08.08.2014 havi
ing been regularized as EOL,
could not have then been ma
ade a subject of departmental
proceedings. The same would n
not be in consonance with the
dicta of Bakshish Singh (supra).
46. In view of the above discus
ssion, this Court finds that the
disciplinary proceedings agains
st the petitioner suffered from
procedural irregularities and sub
bstantive infirmities.
47. Accordingly, the Impugned p
penalty order dated 23.09.2019,
as well as the Impugned order d
dated 31.10.2019 passed by the
learned Tribunal are set aside.
The respondent is directed to
restore the petitioner’s pay and
d consequential service benefits
within a period of eight weeks fro
om the date of this Order.
48. The writ petition is accor
rdingly, allowed. The pending
application is disposed of.”
6.7. In t
this connection, reference may
be made to O.M. No. F. No.
11012/1
2/2010-Estt.(A) issued by the
DoP&T, the subject whereof
pertains
to communicating the tentati
ve reasons for disagreement
under R
Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1965. The said O.M.
Page 22 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
provides
s as follows:
“The undersigned is directed to s
say that rule 15(2) of the Central
Civil Services (Classification, C
Control and & Appeal) Rules,
1965 states that 'The Disciplina
ary Authority shall forward or
cause to be forwarded a copy of
f the report of the inquiry, if any,
held by Disciplinary Authority
y or where the Disciplinary
Authority is not the Inquiring Au
uthority, a copy of the report of
the lnquiring Authority together
r with its own tentative reasons
for disagreement, if any, with th
he findings of Inquiry Authority
on any article of charge to the G
Government Servant who shall be
required to submit, if he so desir
res, his written representation or
submission to the Disciplinary
Authority within fifteen days,
irrespective of whether the repo
ort is favourable or not, to the
Government Servant.
2. The necessity of following the
aforementioned rule 15(2) both
in letter and spirit is reiterated.
The communication forwarding
the IO's report alongwith the ten
tative reasons for disagreement,
if any, seeking comments/repres
entation of the Charged officer
should reflect this position. A
ll Ministries/Departments are,
therefore, requested to ensu
ure that the communication
forwarding 'the IO's report etc. d
does not contain phrases such as
'Article of charge is fully proved
d' or 'Article of charge is fully
substantiated' which could be
construed to mean that the
disciplinary authority is biased
d even before considering the
representation of the charged off
fficer and this would be against
the letter and spirit of the CCS (C
CCA) Rules, 1965.
3. Ministry of Finance etc. may
bring the contents of the above
OM to the notice of all concerned
d.”
It
t is pertinent to note that the prin
nciple enunciated in Shekhar
Page 23 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
Ghosh
(supra) , read in conjunction wi
ith the aforesaid O.M., lends
support
to the applicant’s contention re
egarding the existence of bias
and mal
a fides on the part of the Discipl
linary Authority.
6.8
The procedure adopted by the D
Disciplinary Authority cannot
be justi
fied in the light of the princip
ples governing disagreement
under R
Rule 15. The aforesaid O.M. clea
arly emphasizes the necessity
of follow
wing Rule 15(2) in letter and spi
irit. It specifically cautions the
Disciplin
nary Authority against using ex
xpressions such as “Article of
charge i
is fully proved” or “Article of ch
harge is fully substantiated” in
the com
mmunication forwarding the d
disagreement note, as such
expressi
ions may indicate that the aut
thority has already formed a
conclud
ed view even before consideri
ing the representation of the
Charged
d Officer, which would be contr
rary to the letter and spirit of
the CCS
S (CCA) Rules, 1965. In the p
present case, the Disciplinary
Authorit
ty, while disagreeing with the fin
ndings of the Enquiry Officer,
appears
to have proceeded to a conclude
ed view not only regarding the
guilt of
f the applicant but also with
regard to the consequences
flowing
therefrom. We are, therefore, o
f the view that the applicant’s
contenti
ion that the enquiry stood vi
itiated on this count merits
consider
ration. More importantly, i
in the present case, the
disagree
ement note hinges substantially u
upon the deposition of PW-9,
Shri Sau
urabh Chandra, the then ACP/M
Mayur Vihar, whose evidence
Page 24 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
was reli
ed upon by the Disciplinary Aut
thority while disagreeing with
the Enq
quiry Officer’s findings. Signifi
icantly, the said witness was
examine
ed during the enquiry, and his e
evidence became the principal
basis fo
or the Disciplinary Authority’s
s disagreement, although the
Enquiry
y Officer, upon appreciation of
f the evidence led during the
enquiry,
, had recorded a finding that no
o incriminating evidence had
come on
n record against the applicant. E
Even so, the said witness, PW-
9, was
never part of the list of witne
esses, along with the charge
memo.
7.
CONCLUSION :
7.1.
In view of the foregoing disc
cussion, the present Original
Applica
tion is allowed. The impugn
ned suspension order dated
30.07.20
019 and the order of censure
e dated 31.03.2021 and the
correspo
onding appellate order dated 09.
.12.2021, as well as the major
punishm
ment proceedings dated 12.07.2
2021 and the appellate order
dated 12
2.04.2022, are hereby quashed an
nd set aside.
7.2.
The applicant shall be entitled
d to all consequential benefits,
includin
ng restoration of the forfeited ser
rvice, pay and allowances, and
other se
ervice benefits, as admissible i
in accordance with law. The
period f
from 29.07.2019 to 14.11.2019
9 shall also be dealt with in
Page 25 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI
Item No.41 (Court-4)
O.A. No.2547/
/2022
accordan
nce with law consequential t
to the setting aside of the
aforesai
d orders.
7.3. All
pending Miscellaneous Applica
ations also stand disposed of.
There sh
hall be no order as to costs.
(Dr.
M
Anand S Khati)
Member (A)
(Manish Garg)
Member (J)
/as/
Page 26 of 26
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:50+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI