Disciplinary authorities must meaningfully consider employees’ defences and provide reasons establishing the specific misconduct alleged.

The applicant, an Inspector (Executive) in the Delhi Police, was posted as SHO, Police Station Harsh Vihar, on 05.09.2016. Following a complaint alleging harassment of a young woman and her family, FIR No. 293/2016 under Sections 354-D/509/34 IPC was registered on 08.09.2016.

The accused were arrested, investigation was completed, and the charge-sheet was filed on 02.02.2017. Subsequently, upon the complainant’s continued dissatisfaction and allegations of further threats, FIR No. 37/2017 under Section 509/34 IPC was registered.

The Joint Commissioner of Police directed action against the Investigating Officers and the applicant for allegedly failing to brief and supervise the investigation professionally. A show-cause notice dated 30.05.2017 was issued, alleging supervisory lapses.

After considering the applicant’s written reply and oral representation, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of censure on 19.08.2017. The applicant’s departmental appeal was rejected on 10.07.2019.

He challenged the show-cause notice, punishment order, and appellate order before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority adequately and meaningfully considered the applicant’s defence before imposing the punishment of censure for failure to brief and supervise the investigation.

2. Whether the punishment and appellate orders contained sufficient reasons demonstrating application of mind to the specific supervisory lapse attributed to the applicant.

3. Whether the authorities could rely upon any materially different allegation, such as failure to submit a “correct report”, when that allegation was not specifically contained in the show-cause notice.

4. Whether the punishment order dated 19.08.2017 and appellate order dated 10.07.2019 were liable to be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal applied the principle that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited and does not ordinarily permit re-appreciation of evidence as an appellate court; however, disciplinary decisions are reviewable where relevant material or the employee’s specific defence is not considered, or where adequate reasons are not disclosed.

It relied on M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 496, for the rule that administrative and quasi-judicial authorities must record reasons, enabling the affected party to understand the basis of the decision and facilitating judicial review.

It also relied on Triveni Prasad Mishra & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., W.P. No. 4180/2020, decided on 18.06.2020, for the principle that merely stating that an employee’s reply is “unsatisfactory”, without explaining why, is insufficient.

The Tribunal further applied the audi alteram partem principle: an adverse decision cannot be based on a materially different allegation that was not put to the employee and against which no opportunity of defence was provided.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not been denied an opportunity of hearing because he received the show-cause notice, submitted a written reply, and was heard orally.

However, the authorities failed to adequately connect the applicant’s alleged supervisory lapse with the specific facts and defence placed on record.

The applicant had asserted that he joined as SHO only on 05.09.2016, promptly caused FIR No. 293/2016 to be registered, and that the investigation was completed with filing of the charge-sheet on 02.02.2017.

The mere fact that both FIRs were registered during his tenure, or that the complainant remained dissatisfied and a subsequent FIR was registered, did not by itself establish negligence or failure of supervision.

Although the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities referred to the relevant factual circumstances, they did not sufficiently explain why the applicant’s stated actions nevertheless constituted the specific professional or supervisory failure alleged against him.

The Tribunal also held that the minor nature of the punishment of censure did not dispense with the requirement of a sustainable and reasoned finding of misconduct.

It did not quash the show-cause notice, holding that the applicant had been adequately informed of the allegation and given an opportunity to defend himself.

However, it set aside the punishment order dated 19.08.2017 and the appellate order dated 10.07.2019 because the applicant’s material defence was not adequately considered and the reasons did not sufficiently establish the alleged supervisory lapse.

The matter was remitted to the competent Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration on the basis of the original show-cause notice, the applicant’s reply, oral submissions, and relevant material.

Any materially new or different allegation could be relied upon only after granting the applicant an appropriate opportunity of defence.

The exercise was directed to be completed preferably within three months; there was no order as to costs.