Disciplinary penalties require reasoned consideration of the employee’s specific defence and alleged misconduct.

The applicant, an Inspector (Executive) and former SHO of Police Station Harsh Vihar, was proceeded against after inspections conducted on 8 and 16 August 2017 revealed that several factory employees had not been verified by the Beat Staff.

A Show Cause Notice dated 22 August 2017 alleged that, despite briefing of the Beat Staff, the applicant had failed to exercise proper supervision over employee verification, amounting to negligence, carelessness and lack of supervision.

In his reply, the applicant stated that the Beat Staff had been briefed, that verification of short-term or outsourced labour involved practical difficulties, and that preventive measures, including Kalandaras and proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C., had been undertaken.

He also relied on an RTI response concerning the alleged briefing or advisory action.

After hearing the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of censure on 3 January 2018; his appeal was rejected on 6 August 2019.

The applicant challenged the Show Cause Notice, penalty order and appellate order before the Tribunal.

Whether the fact that certain employees remained unverified, by itself, established the applicant’s misconduct or supervisory negligence as SHO.

Whether the Disciplinary Authority adequately considered the applicant’s specific defence concerning briefing of the Beat Staff, difficulties in verifying outsourced or short-term labour, preventive measures, and the RTI material.

Whether the appellate order was a reasoned order that properly dealt with the applicant’s defence and established the alleged supervisory lapse.

The Tribunal applied the principles governing judicial review in disciplinary matters: judicial review concerns the legality and fairness of the decision-making process and is not an appeal on the merits, as stated in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610.

Interference is permissible where the procedure is unlawful, natural justice is violated, irrelevant considerations are relied upon, or the conclusion is unsustainable on the material available.

The Tribunal also relied on Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, for the principle that a quasi-judicial authority must record reasons supporting its conclusions.

Substantively, S.O. No. 29/91 imposed responsibility on the SHO to check the antecedents of immigrant servants, floating labourers and casual labourers and to ensure periodic verification through the relevant register.

The Tribunal accepted that employee verification was within the police authorities’ responsibilities and that the applicant, as SHO, had supervisory duties under S.O. No. 29/91.

However, the charge was not merely that some employees remained unverified; it was that the applicant had negligently failed to supervise the Beat Staff despite their alleged briefing.

Therefore, the authorities were required to establish a supervisory lapse attributable to the applicant, rather than infer misconduct solely from the inspection findings.

The applicant’s assertions regarding briefing, the practical difficulty of verifying short-term or outsourced workers, and the preventive action taken were directly relevant to that charge, but the disciplinary order did not sufficiently explain why those defences failed.

The RTI response was not treated as conclusive proof that no briefing had occurred; nevertheless, it was relevant material that required consideration.

The appellate order similarly failed to demonstrate how the applicant’s specific defence and the material relied upon established the alleged supervisory negligence.

The Tribunal accordingly found a deficiency in the reasoning and decision-making process without re-appreciating the evidence or expressing a final view on the merits.

The matter was remitted to the competent authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

The authority was directed to consider the applicant’s reply and the relevant material, including his defence regarding briefing of the Beat Staff, the nature of outsourced or short-term labour, and the preventive measures allegedly undertaken, and to determine whether the record established the specific supervisory lapse charged against him.

A fresh, reasoned and speaking order was directed to be passed preferably within three months of receipt of the certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

No order as to costs was made.