SI (Exe.) Devender Kumar vs Govt. of NCTD & Ors.

That the allegations levelled in the departmental enquiry against the applicant are vague, as it is not specified in which case the investigation was not done properly. The allegations are wild, vague and indefinite in the present departmental enquiry and, thus, the impugned orders are bad in law.

That the present punishment of dismissal from service is highly disproportionate to the allegations levelled against the applicant. The absence of the applicant is covered by medical documents, and there have been timely intimations to the department regarding the illness and absence of the applicant. The present facts establish that the absence of the applicant was neither wilful nor unauthorised. It is a matter of fact that the medical documents submitted by the applicant have not at all been questioned by any of the authorities, and further, no absentee notices being issued establishes that the department was having timely information about the absence of the applicant due to illness. It is a matter of fact that even as per the standing orders issued by the respondents, prior permission for leave cannot be taken in special circumstances like falling ill, and thus, in the present circumstances, even the failure to obtain prior permission for leave cannot be treated as misconduct. It is an admitted fact that the present employment is the only source of income for the applicant and his family. The applicant has a long career in Delhi Police and is looking forward to the opportunity to serve the department.

That the applicant made a specific averment in the statutory appeal regarding the proportionality of punishment, but the Appellate Authority failed to consider the submissions of the applicant regarding the proportionality of punishment, thus, making the said order bad in law.

That the applicant made a defence statement in the departmental enquiry, but the Enquiry Officer failed to consider any of the submissions made by the applicant in the defence statement, thus, making the findings of the Enquiry Officer bad in law. The Enquiry Officer is under an obligation to at least consider the defence made by the applicant in the defence statement, but, on the contrary, the Enquiry Officer failed in the said obligation and proved the charge against the applicant.

That the present departmental enquiry is vitiated as the respondent failed to examine the Chittha Munshi, Ct. Sumit Kumar, in the departmental enquiry, but still proved the charge in relation to the same Chittha Munshi against the applicant, and the same is reproduced herein below:-

That the allegations in the departmental enquiry, i.e., “did not hand over the case in time” and “handed over case file at later stage”, are vague allegations. The allegations levelled as such, being vague and indefinite, do not constitute misconduct. The present averment is enough to vitiate the D.E., as it is an admitted fact that it is impossible to give a defence in respect of allegations which are vague, frivolous and indefinite.

That the absence period is distributed between 02.10.2013 and 26.08.2014. It shows that the applicant was passing through a rough patch in terms of health; otherwise, prior to the present alleged absence, there was no absence on the part of the applicant.

That once the absence due to medical ailment is accepted by the applicant, then, in that situation, to make allegations against the applicant regarding his efficiency cannot be construed as misconduct against the applicant.

That the finding of the E.O. is in violation of Rule 16 (ix) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, as the E.O. failed to record a finding on each article of charge, that too supported by the evidence on record. The findings are vague, indefinite and based on suspicion and surmises.

That the applicant admittedly submitted medical papers in relation to the absence period from 02.10.2013 to 06.01.2014, from 21.02.2014 to 06.05.2014, and from 02.06.2014 to 01.07.2014, and the other absence period was also very short and due to illness. To ignore the medical papers just on the face of it by giving vague reasoning shows arbitrariness and non-consideration of the defence of the applicant. The certificates issued to the applicant regarding medical illness are from recognised doctors with authorised degrees and, thus, are admissible under the CCS (Leave) Rules. It is an admitted fact that the applicant was never subjected to a second medical examination during the entire period of absence and, thus, now to ignore the medical documents of the applicant at this later stage is absolutely wrong and arbitrary. Once the applicant is ill, then it is not in the hands of the applicant to look out for the doctors who are to be approached as per service rules, but, on the contrary, the applicant, as a patient, approached the doctor in whom he had trust.

That the report of Insp. Ranjeet Dhaka and Insp. Rajender Prasad cannot be taken into account, as it totally overlooks the medical illness of the applicant during the alleged period of absence.

That it is wrong to allege that the applicant is a habitual absentee and indifferent towards his service, and it is an admitted fact that the applicant joined as SI in Delhi Police on 01.12.2010. The applicant performed his duty sincerely and honestly in PS Maurice Nagar for more than a year in North District, and there was no absence from duty. The applicant was transferred from North to Outer District, and there was no absence from duty. The applicant was transferred from North to Outer District and joined PS Bawana on 18.03.2013, which is a proved fact as evidenced by the testimony of PW-2 ASI Bijender Kumar No. 27/OD HAE/Branch and document Exhibit 2/A. The applicant performed his duty regularly and sincerely from 18.03.2013 to 02.10.2013 for more than nine months, and there was no absence on the part of the applicant. The above facts and evidence clearly prove that the applicant is not in the habit of absenting himself wilfully and deliberately as alleged in the charge.

That the applicant is placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. G. Krishna, whereby it has been held:-

That the E.O. is under an obligation to record a finding on each article of charge, discussing the evidence that has come on record, and further, the same obligation is cast upon the E.O. by Rule 16(ix) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. The present finding is in absolute violation of Rule 16(ix) ibid, and further, there is no discussion at all on the defence of the applicant, nor is any evidence mentioned in support of the finding, thus, vitiating the E.O. report and further proceedings. The applicant is placing reliance on the judgment dated 02.09.2010 of this Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 271 of 2009.

That the present case is a case of no misconduct. The applicant is also a victim of time and, owing to illness, was not in a position to attend the office. The illness of the applicant has been proved by the qualified doctors of government hospitals as well as private ones. The applicant had also deposited the medical certificates of qualified and authorised doctors, which is a matter of record. But the Disciplinary Authority has discarded the same merely on the ground that the same were not got permitted under Rule 19 (5) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 by the Competent Authority. It is understood that when the individual is bedridden due to illness, how it is virtually possible for him to get the medical rest approved from the Competent Authority first. Nevertheless, the applicant conveyed the information of his illness telephonically a number of times. On each and every occasion, the Duty Officer refused to lodge the information without assigning any reason. The applicant, being new to the department, was not aware of any other mode of getting the medical leave permitted by the Competent Authority. Copies of all medical certificates are annexed along with the present O.A. As far as the allegation of habitual absence is concerned, the applicant had always performed his duty sincerely and diligently. The applicant is a victim of circumstances and illness which had forced the applicant to stay away from duty. As such, the decision of the Disciplinary Authority is not based on merits and needs to be reviewed, at least to save the career of a youth who has just started his life.

That the present case is a case of no misconduct. The respondents failed to consider that, as far as the question of the second allegation that the applicant did not conduct the complete investigation of 20 cases entrusted to the applicant and later, on demand, these files were sought, is also not based on merits.

As far as the period before the illness is concerned, the applicant had conducted the investigation of all cases in a very efficient and professional manner. No adverse order of the Court or remark of any senior officer was given in any case file regarding the manner of investigation being conducted by the applicant. In his representation and oral submission before the Disciplinary Authority, the applicant had stated that due to illness he could not conduct the proper investigation. The Disciplinary Authority had construed the submission of the applicant in a negative manner. It has been mentioned in the final punishment order that, on the one hand, the applicant is saying that he had conducted the investigation properly and, on the other hand, the applicant is saying that he could not conduct the investigation in a proper manner due to illness. The contention of the applicant is that the applicant had conducted the investigation properly and efficiently when the applicant was in good health, but when a person is ill, he could not conduct the investigation properly. Nevertheless, the applicant conducted the investigation of all the cases to the extent possible, which is evident from the record. The prosecution has also clearly admitted the crucial fact that the applicant had refused all case files except one, and the same has also been mentioned in the final punishment order. Every file was returned on time and no prejudice had resulted in any of the cases being investigated by the applicant.

As far as the file of case FIR No. 128/13 under Sections 498A IPC, PS Bawana, is concerned, the applicant tried to hand over the completed case file several times to MHCR, but he simply refused to accept the case file and stated that he would not accept it unless directed by the SHO. The applicant requested the SHO to direct the MHCR to accept the file, but the then SHO refused to accept the same for reasons best known to him. The applicant also lodged a DD No. 25 dated 18.06.2015 in this regard. The applicant had also made a departure for the purpose vide DD No. 15 dated 18.06.2015. Both copies of the DD entries are enclosed herewith for kind perusal. The documentary evidence in the shape of DD entries unequivocally proves that the applicant had made efforts to return this file, but the same went in vain. Finally, the file was accepted on 04.12.2015, after the dismissal of the applicant. It is evident that the SHO was not accepting the file mala fide against the applicant. The Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority simply believed the mala fide version of the SHO’s report and did not give any attention to the genuine version of the applicant, which was well supported by documentary evidence.

That the present case is a case of no misconduct. The authorities failed to consider that, regarding the third part of the allegation, on 02.06.2015 the applicant had proceeded to the hospital for taking medical attention vide DD No. 26/A due to illness. After examination in the government hospital, namely, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi, the doctor initially advised one day of medical rest, which was further extended for a period of 15 days. The applicant informed the Duty Officer about the medical rest, being unable to come due to illness. The applicant had also submitted the medical rest certificate of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi, before finalisation of the case, but regret to mention that the Disciplinary Authority did not give weightage to the medical papers and decided the case one-sidedly. Moreover, it has been mentioned in DD No. 53/A dated 02.06.2014 that the said entry was lodged at the instance of the then SHO/PS Bawana and the discussion was made by Ct. Sumit. It is the trite settled law that the alleged allegation must be corroborated by the very person in order to avoid any miscarriage of justice. The record manifestly shows that neither PW-4 Insp. Ranjeet Dhaka, the then SHO/PS Bawana, disclosed about such kind of insubordination in his statement, nor was Ct. Sumit examined as a prosecution witness to bring the facts home. Thus, this part of the charge cannot even be framed against the applicant, but, on the contrary, the authorities imposed the punishment on the applicant on the same charge.

That it has been mentioned in the punishment order that the applicant was brought virtually to the office to get the findings served on him and that the applicant was not responding to the phone. When the findings were served on him, the applicant was working in the CCTNS branch and was performing his duty sincerely. As the applicant was riding the bike, he could not respond to the telephone call at that time and communicated after reaching the destination. Thus, no question arises of his not responding to the telephone.

It has been ruled by the Supreme Court in the case of K. B. Parmar Vs. Union of India:-

Since the date of enlistment, the applicant has always performed his duty sincerely and diligently. Unfortunately, since February 2013, the applicant started coming in the clutches of diseases which lowered the efficiency of the applicant under compelling circumstances. It is stated that the absence period was not deliberate or intentional, but the circumstances compelled the applicant to stay away from his duty. The absence of the applicant was neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to mitigating circumstances. The illness of the applicant is supported by the medical certificates submitted to the Competent Authority, which are not disputed. The non-issuance of the absentee notice further establishes that the department was having knowledge of the illness of the applicant.

That the present dismissal from service is in violation of Rule 8 (a) and Rule 10 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, as no complete unfitness is being proved by the authorities in relation to the police services and, in these circumstances, the punishment that can be imposed upon the applicant is not dismissal from service.

That there is an exception even to the provision in Standing Order No. 111 in relation to taking prior permission of the Competent Authority before going on leave, and the same is in exceptional circumstances, and falling ill does come under exceptional circumstances. Once Standing Order No. 111 itself carves out an exception that being ill is one of the circumstances in which prior permission for leave cannot be obtained, then, in such circumstances, once the illness of the applicant and the medical certificates are not disputed, the applicant cannot be alleged to have been wilfully absent.

That the order of the Disciplinary Authority is bad in law, as the Disciplinary Authority has taken into account the future absence of the applicant while imposing the punishment on the applicant. The Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority cannot take into account the absence which is beyond the summary of allegations and the charge framed against the applicant in the Departmental Enquiry, as the same act would be in violation of the principles of natural justice and a material charge is taken into account which is beyond the period of absence mentioned in the summary of allegations in the Departmental Enquiry, which was never put to the applicant in the Departmental Enquiry. Thus, the said act of the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer is bad in law, and the applicant is supported by the judgment and averment of the applicant is supported by the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1048/1999.

That the applicant has taken the ground of proportionality of punishment in the statutory appeal, and further, it was incumbent upon the Appellate Authority to consider the case of the applicant regarding the plea of proportionality of punishment, as the applicant’s illness was very much within the knowledge of the Competent Authority and was further covered by medical documents, and there had been regular intimation to the department whereby the reasons were intimated along with the medical documents. Further, the applicant was the sole bread earner of the family with a clean service record. The appeal of the applicant was rejected by the Competent Authority without considering the specific submissions and pleas raised in the body of the statutory appeal and was rejected on arbitrary grounds, thus, causing great prejudice to the applicant.

That the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority were very much aware of the medical illness of the applicant, which was well supported by the medical documents, and further, the applicant duly informed the same to the Competent Authority regularly, but the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider any of the medical documents or intimations given to the Disciplinary Authority, thus, making the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the order of the Disciplinary Authority bad in law.

That once the entire period of alleged absence is covered by the medical certificates and further, there has been intimation to the department regarding the illness of the applicant supported by the medical documents, then the medical documents cannot be ignored by the authorities and, thus, the present case is not a case of unauthorised and wilful absence.

That the Disciplinary Authority, without applying its mind to the provisions of Rule 18 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, ordered the ex parte Departmental Enquiry against the applicant, thus, causing great prejudice to the applicant.

That the Enquiry Officer, without giving proper opportunity to the applicant for producing defence witnesses and a defence statement in response to the charge framed against the applicant, gave a finding of the charge being proved against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant is also placing reliance on the Order/Judgment dated 08.11.2024 of this Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 1185/2017 in the matter of Shri Nalin Kumar Verma Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors.

The above frequent absences shows that the applicant was in habit of absenting himself willfully, deliberately and unauthorisedly without any prior permission of the competent authority, which is utter violation of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and S.O. No. 111 of Delhi Police.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present O.A. is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed, as the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant were conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure and after affording him adequate opportunity of defence. It is submitted that the applicant was entrusted with the investigation of 20 case files, but failed to hand over the files within time and, out of the said 20 case files, 19 were handed over only at a later stage, whereas one case file relating to FIR No. 128/13 under Section 498-A IPC, PS Bawana, remained with him without any cogent reason. The then SHOs, Bawana, had also reported that the applicant had failed to conduct investigation in the cases entrusted to him, which demonstrated his negligent and unprofessional approach towards his official duties.

Learned counsel further submits that the applicant was also found to have remained absent from duty without prior permission on several occasions. In particular, on 02.06.2014, although the applicant had gone to the hospital for taking medicine vide DD No. 26-A, he neither returned to the police station nor intimated the competent authority. When contacted telephonically by the Chithha Munshi, he stated that he would not come and that his absence could be marked. Consequently, his refusal as well as absence from duty was recorded vide DD No. 53-A dated 02.06.2014.

It is further submitted that the applicant was afforded full and reasonable opportunity during the departmental enquiry. The summary of allegations, list of witnesses and relied-upon documents were supplied to him. The applicant expressly declined to engage a Defence Assistant and elected to conduct his defence himself. Five prosecution witnesses were examined in his presence and an opportunity to cross-examine them was afforded to him, which he availed by cross-examining one witness. He did not produce any defence witness, though he submitted his written statement of defence. Thereafter, upon transfer of the first Enquiry Officer, the enquiry was entrusted to another Enquiry Officer, who completed the proceedings and submitted his findings.

Learned counsel submits that the Enquiry Officer, after considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the documents on record, found the allegations substantiated. The findings recorded that the applicant had been wilfully, deliberately and unauthorisedly absent from duty on several occasions; that he had failed to hand over the case files in time; that one case file continued to remain with him without cogent reason; and that he had failed to conduct investigation in the cases entrusted to him. The incident dated 02.06.2014 further demonstrated his disregard for discipline and his refusal to report back to the police station.

Learned counsel further submits that a copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer was supplied to the applicant, who submitted his representation. The applicant was also afforded an opportunity of personal hearing before the Disciplinary Authority. His pleas regarding illness, the handing over of case files and the alleged non-recording of his medical rest in the Daily Diary were duly considered but were not found convincing. The Disciplinary Authority examined the statements of all five prosecution witnesses, the enquiry findings, the applicant’s defence and the other material available on record before arriving at its conclusion.

It is contended that the applicant’s plea that his absence was attributable to illness was rightly rejected, as he had produced medical papers only in respect of certain periods of absence and had not submitted medical papers in respect of several other periods. Further, the medical certificates relied upon by him did not, by themselves, confer any right upon him to remain absent from duty. The Disciplinary Authority relied upon Rule 19 (5) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, under which a medical certificate is required to be forwarded to the competent authority and orders of that authority awaited. The applicant, however, did not obtain the necessary permission before availing medical rest.

Learned counsel submits that the reports of the then SHOs, Bawana, which were proved during the departmental enquiry through PW-4 and PW-5, corroborated the allegations regarding the applicant’s failure to properly investigate the cases and his frequent absence from duty. The applicant’s plea that the allegations were not supported by documentary material was therefore rightly rejected. Similarly, his contention concerning the Chithha Munshi was not sufficient to dislodge the DD entry dated 02.06.2014, which had already been duly proved during the enquiry. If the applicant desired to establish his version, he could have produced the concerned official as a defence witness, but he did not do so.

It is further submitted that the applicant belongs to a disciplined police force, where devotion to duty and strict adherence to discipline are of paramount importance. Wilful and unauthorised absence from duty cannot be treated as a minor lapse, as such conduct adversely affects the functioning and discipline of the force. The Disciplinary Authority, therefore, rightly considered the applicant’s repeated unauthorised absence, failure to discharge investigative duties and disregard of departmental directions as serious misconduct warranting stringent disciplinary action.

Learned counsel submits that after considering the entire material on record and agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed a reasoned order imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the applicant. The period of 216 days of unauthorised absence was also treated as “Not Spent on Duty”. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Police, Northern Range, Delhi, which was duly considered and rejected by a detailed and speaking order dated 21.03.2016.

Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no procedural irregularity, violation of principles of natural justice or perversity in the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority. The applicant was granted adequate opportunity to defend himself at every stage, and the conclusions arrived at are based upon the evidence available on record. The penalty imposed is commensurate with the nature and gravity of the misconduct, particularly having regard to the applicant’s repeated unauthorised absence and his failure to discharge the duties entrusted to him in a disciplined police force. The O.A., therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

Learned counsel further submits that the principal allegation regarding the applicant’s absence from duty was neither wilful nor unauthorised. The applicant had been suffering from illness and had duly intimated the department regarding his inability to attend duty. The official Daily Diary entries themselves demonstrate that the department was aware of the applicant’s illness. In particular, DD Entry No.17-A dated 02.10.2013 records that the applicant was not well and could not report for duty. Thereafter, on joining duty, the applicant submitted the medical documents covering the period of absence, which fact was recorded in DD Entry No.33-B dated 06.01.2014. Similar DD entries were made on subsequent occasions, recording the applicant’s illness and the medical rest submitted by him.

It is submitted that DD Entry No. 17-A dated 02.10.2013 specifically records that the applicant had informed the concerned Chittha Munshi that he was not well. Likewise, DD Entry No. 33-B dated 06.01.2014 records that, upon reporting for duty, the applicant submitted medical rest on account of illness and requested that the period of absence be converted into medical rest. The subsequent DD entries also record the medical rest submitted by the applicant. Thus, the contemporaneous official record supports the applicant’s case that his absence was attributable to illness and was not a deliberate or wilful abstention from duty.

Learned counsel submits that the applicant had produced medical certificates in respect of the relevant periods of absence, including the periods from 02.10.2013 to 06.01.2014, 21.02.2014 to 06.05.2014 and 02.06.2014 to 01.07.2014. The said medical documents were issued by recognised doctors and were never subjected to any second medical examination. The Enquiry Officer, however, failed to properly consider the medical material placed on record and rejected the applicant’s defence by assigning vague reasons. Such non-consideration of material evidence amounts to failure to consider the defence of the applicant and renders the findings vulnerable to judicial scrutiny.

It is further submitted that the Enquiry Officer failed to record proper findings on each article of charge supported by evidence on record, contrary to the requirement referred to by the applicant under Rule 16 (ix) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules. The findings recorded against the applicant are vague and are based on suspicion and surmises rather than a proper appreciation of the evidence and defence. The applicant had specifically raised these issues in his defence statement, but the Enquiry Officer failed to consider the material submissions made therein.

Learned counsel also submits that the departmental enquiry stands vitiated on account of non-examination of Ct. Sumit Kumar, Chittha Munshi, who was a material witness in relation to the allegation concerning the applicant’s absence on 02.06.2014. The allegation itself states that the Chittha Munshi had telephonically contacted the applicant and that the applicant allegedly stated that he would not come to duty. When the entire allegation rests upon the alleged conversation with the said witness, non-production of that witness deprived the applicant of his valuable right to cross-examine him. The respondents, therefore, could not legitimately rely upon such an allegation without examining the person who was the alleged source of the information.

Learned counsel further submits that the allegation that the applicant was a “habitual absentee” is wholly contrary to the service record placed on record. The applicant joined as Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police on 01.12.2010 and served at PS Maurice Nagar without any absence from duty. After his transfer to PS Bawana, he joined on 18.03.2013 and performed his duties regularly for more than nine months, up to 02.10.2013, without any absence. The said material clearly demonstrates that the applicant was not in the habit of wilfully or deliberately absenting himself from duty.

It is submitted that even the subsequent official records corroborate the applicant’s case. DD Entry No. 54-B dated 16.01.2014 records that the applicant reported for duty after an absence of 6 days 8 hours 35 minutes and that the medical rest was annexed. Similarly, DD Entry No. 22-A dated 06.05.2014 records that the applicant reported for duty after an absence of 8 hours 15 minutes and that the medical rest was annexed. DD Entry No. 45-B dated 01.07.2014 records that the applicant reported for duty after an absence of 28 days 17 hours 20 minutes and that the medical rest was annexed.

Learned counsel submits that the respondents’ own official records, therefore, establish that the applicant’s absence was not a case of deliberate abandonment of duty. The applicant was suffering from illness, the department was informed from time to time, and medical documents were submitted upon his return. In such circumstances, the mere fact that the applicant could not obtain prior leave permission during the period of sudden illness cannot, by itself, be treated as wilful misconduct, particularly when the standing orders themselves recognise that prior permission may not be possible in special circumstances such as sudden illness.

Learned counsel lastly submits that the punishment of dismissal from service is grossly disproportionate to the nature of the allegations and the circumstances established on record. The applicant had a long career in Delhi Police and the present employment was the sole source of livelihood for him and his family. The applicant had specifically raised the issue of proportionality before the appellate authority, but the same was not duly considered. Failure of the appellate authority to consider a specific and material plea regarding proportionality of punishment renders the appellate order unsustainable.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the disciplinary proceedings suffer from serious procedural and substantive infirmities, the findings are unsupported by proper evidence, the applicant’s medical defence has not been duly considered, a material witness was not examined, the charges are vague and indefinite, and the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate. The impugned orders, therefore, deserve to be quashed and set aside and the applicant deserves to be granted consequential benefits in accordance with law.

In another case in the matter of Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while re-appreciating evidence, the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held the parameters as to when the High Court shall not interfere in the disciplinary proceedings are as under:-

In another judgment rendered by the Three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SBI Vs. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612, by referring the law laid down in B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) and a catena of other judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:-

Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. Umesh reported in (2022) 6 SCC 563, emphasised about the scope of judicial review by the Courts/Tribunal in the matter of disciplinary/departmental inquiry and held that: -

Also, in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that recording of reasons is a facet of natural justice and ensures transparency and accountability in administrative action. The relevant paras of the same are reproduced below:-

In A. Masilamani Vs. LIC, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tiwari, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 308 also throws light on the approach to be adopted but in a more nuanced manner than what was held in A. Masilamani (supra). Paragraph 8 of said decision reads as follows:

Further in Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, in para 23, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

The sum and substance of above guiding observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgments is that recording of reasons is part of natural justice. Reasons ensure transparency and fairness. Absence of reasons renders the order arbitrary and vulnerable to judicial review. Thus, every quasi-judicial authority affecting rights of parties must pass a speaking order.