Delhi Police SI’s One-Year Service Forfeiture Quashed After CAT Finds Disciplinary Authority Had Prejudged Guilt

The applicant, a Delhi Police Sub-Inspector, was suspended with effect from 29 July 2019 and later reinstated.

Departmental proceedings concerned alleged deficiencies in the investigation of several cases and his taking back three case files after suspension.

The Enquiry Officer found no incriminating evidence against him, but the Disciplinary Authority disagreed and imposed forfeiture of one year’s approved service, with a consequential pay reduction; the suspension period was treated as not spent on duty.

The applicant also received a censure, which was upheld on appeal.

He challenged the suspension, censure and major penalty before the Tribunal, alleging procedural unfairness, bias and an invalid disagreement with the Enquiry Officer’s findings

Under Rule 26(3)(i) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, and Standing Order 128/08, a suspended officer is subject to restrictions on exercising official powers.

A Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with an Enquiry Officer must give tentative, reasoned grounds and afford the charged officer a meaningful opportunity to respond; it cannot treat that opportunity as a post-decisional formality or use the disagreement to repair evidentiary deficiencies or introduce a fresh case.

The Tribunal relied on *Shekhar Ghosh v. Union of India & Ors.*, reported in 2007 (1) SCC (L&S) 247, and *Durga Prasad v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi*, 2025 INSC 548, on fair procedure and the need for a properly reasoned disagreement.

It also referred to the DoP&T Office Memorandum concerning Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which cautions against language suggesting that guilt has been conclusively determined before considering the charged officer’s representation.

Suspension, being an interim measure, is not by itself proof of misconduct.

The Tribunal found that the disagreement note treated the taking back of the case files as establishing guilt and referred to the alleged violation of the suspension rule, rather than adequately addressing the Enquiry Officer’s assessment of the evidence.

It considered that the note risked filling gaps in the enquiry and reflected a concluded view before the applicant’s response was considered.

The Disciplinary Authority’s reliance on PW-9 was particularly problematic: his evidence became central to the disagreement, although the Tribunal noted that he was not included in the witness list accompanying the charge memorandum.

These defects undermined the fairness of the major-penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal also found the challenge to the censure and suspension orders merited relief, though its reasoning on those orders was less developed

It directed that the applicant receive consequential benefits, including restoration of forfeited service, pay and allowances, and other service benefits as admissible in law.

The period from 29 July to 14 November 2019 was to be dealt with in accordance with law consequent upon the orders being set aside.

No order as to costs was made.