Delhi Police directed to eradicate irrelevant caste references from official records and train subordinate units on constitutional values

The applicant, a Sub-Inspector in the Delhi Police appointed on 1 December 2010, was subjected to departmental proceedings under the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.

The charges alleged that he had remained wilfully and unauthorisedly absent on nine occasions, totalling 215 days, 9 hours and 35 minutes; had delayed handing over 19 of 20 investigation files and retained one file relating to FIR No. 128/2013; and, after proceeding to hospital on 2 June 2014, had neither returned to the police station nor properly informed the authorities.

The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved on 14 November 2015. The Disciplinary Authority dismissed the applicant from service on 30 November 2015, and the statutory appeal was rejected on 21 March 2016.

The applicant challenged the enquiry report, dismissal order and appellate order, contending principally that his absences were due to illness, supported by medical certificates; that the charges were vague; that the Chittha Munshi, Constable Sumit Kumar, had not been examined; that his defence had not been properly considered; and that dismissal was disproportionate.

Whether the departmental enquiry was vitiated by violation of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity, non-examination of Constable Sumit Kumar, or non-compliance with Rule 16(ix) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980?

Whether the charges relating to delayed handing over of case files and retention of one investigation file were vague or unsupported by evidence?

Whether the applicant’s medical certificates and alleged communications to the department established that his repeated absences were neither wilful nor unauthorised?

Whether the Appellate Authority failed to consider the applicant’s plea regarding proportionality of punishment?

Whether dismissal from service was so disproportionate to the proved misconduct as to warrant interference by the Tribunal?

The Tribunal applied the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, holding that the Tribunal does not reappreciate evidence or substitute its own findings unless the decision is based on no evidence, is perverse, legally untenable, procedurally unlawful or violates natural justice.

Relying on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, SBI v. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612, and State of Karnataka v. Umesh, (2022) 6 SCC 563, the Tribunal reiterated that adequacy and reliability of evidence ordinarily cannot be re-examined in judicial review, although findings based on no evidence or perversity may be interfered with.

Rule 16(ix) requires findings on the charges based on the evidence, while Rule 19(5) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 provides that a medical certificate does not by itself confer a right to leave and must be submitted to the competent authority for orders.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that reasons are a facet of natural justice, relying on Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, and held that punishment may be reviewed only where it is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.

It further noted that, where an enquiry is procedurally defective, the ordinary course is remand for fresh consideration, subject to exceptional circumstances, relying on A. Masilamani v. LIC, (2013) 6 SCC 530, and Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tiwari, (2017) 2 SCC 308.

The Tribunal held that the applicant had been supplied the relevant documents, participated in the proceedings, declined a Defence Assistant, cross-examined a prosecution witness and submitted a written defence; therefore, mere rejection of his defence did not establish denial of natural justice.

The charges were sufficiently particularised because the periods of absence were linked to specific Daily Diary entries, 19 delayed files were identified, and FIR No. 128/2013 was specifically mentioned; the applicant’s detailed defence itself showed that he understood the allegations.

Although medical certificates and Daily Diary entries constituted relevant defence material, they did not automatically regularise all nine spells of absence, particularly when the certificates did not cover every period and were not shown to have been accepted by the competent authority under Rule 19(5).

Non-examination of Constable Sumit Kumar did not vitiate the entire enquiry because the 2 June 2014 allegation was supported by the Daily Diary entry and other evidence, while the remaining charges independently rested on departmental material.

The Tribunal further found that the Enquiry Officer and authorities had considered the applicant’s explanations, even though they rejected them, and that the findings were not perverse or based on no evidence.

Considering the applicant’s nine prolonged absences, investigation-related lapses and conduct in a disciplined police force, the Tribunal concluded that dismissal was not shockingly disproportionate.

It held that the enquiry was procedurally valid, the charges were adequately specific, the findings were supported by evidence, and the penalty of dismissal did not warrant judicial interference.

There was no order as to costs.

Separately, the Registrar was directed to send a copy of the order to the fourth respondent to take appropriate measures against the use of irrelevant caste particulars in official records and to train subordinate formations accordingly.