Major Penalty Quashed for Disproportionate Punishment, Violation of Parity, and Non-Consideration of Exculpatory Evidence.

The applicant, a Sub-Inspector in the Delhi Police appointed in 2010, was subjected to a departmental enquiry for allegedly violating Section 160 Cr.P.C. by summoning two women to a police station during a fraud investigation without prior SHO approval

Consequently, he was suspended (later revoked) and awarded a major penalty of forfeiture of one year of approved service, entailing pay reduction, and his suspension period was marked as "not spent on duty"

His name was also placed on the "Secret List of Doubtful Integrity"

The applicant challenged these orders, citing procedural fairness, parity with other officers, and bona fide discharge of duty

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were viciated by differential treatment and hostility, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

2. Whether the non-examination of material witnesses and failure to consider the SHO’s signature on the summons notice violated the principles of natural justice and Rule 16(ix) of the Delhi Police Rules

3. Whether the inclusion of the applicant’s name in the Secret List of Doubtful Integrity was justified for a procedural lapse

The Tribunal applied the principles of judicial review limited to the decision-making process as established in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India.

It strictly interpreted Section 160 Cr.P.C., which prohibits requiring women to attend investigation at any place other than their residence.

Furthermore, it relied on Clause 7(d) of Standing Order No. 265, which suggests minor penalties for procedural/administrative lapses, and Section 138 of the Delhi Police Act regarding acts done in good faith.

The Tribunal found the decision-making process flawed due to severe "differential treatment." While senior officers involved in the same matter received only "warnings," the applicant was given a major penalty without a rational basis for the distinction, violating Article 14.

Critically, the Tribunal noted that the SHO had actually signed the summons notice, yet the Enquiry Officer ignored this evidence, which contradicted the charge that the applicant acted without SHO knowledge.

The Tribunal characterized the lapse as purely procedural—lacking mala fide intent or corruption—thereby making a major penalty "grossly disproportionate" under Standing Order No. 265. Finally, the non-examination of the two women witnesses was held to have prejudiced the applicant’s defense.

The Tribunal specifically quashed the applicant’s inclusion in the "Secret List of Doubtful Integrity," finding no evidence of moral turpitude. The respondents were directed to reconsider MACP benefits and restoration of seniority/pay based on the fresh outcome within three months.