it2025_00977 — Applicant herein, Inspector (Executive) of Delhi Police was punished by dismissing him from service without an enquiry under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India. Disciplinary enquiry can be dispensed with only on grounds of which are robust, clear and substantial. Such a ground is not found in this case. Hence the order of dismissal was set aside, but the Applicant was kept under suspension

IT Rules

Applicant herein, Inspector (Executive) of Delhi Police was punished by dismissing him from service without an enquiry under Article 311 (2)
(b) of the Constitution of India. Disciplinary enquiry can be dispensed with only on grounds of which are robust, clear and substantial. Such a ground is not found in this case. Hence the order of dismissal was set aside, but the Applicant was kept under suspension — This chunk is a section from a judgement where the Tribunal allows an OA setting aside the order of dismissal of a Delhi Police Inspector due to violation of natural justice, as no enquiry was conduc... — Facts: Applicant, Inspector (Executive) of Delhi Police was arrested on the ground that he received illegal gratification from M/s. Unitech. Without holding an enquiry of the charges levelled against him, he was dismissed from service under Article 311 (2)
(b) of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the orders of DA in dismissing him from service and approved by Appellate Authority (AA), the Applicant filed this OA for quashing and setting aside of the impugned orders, dated 8-7-2019 and 1-8-2018 and for reinstatement with consequential benefits. Tribunal noted the case history leading to the dismissal of the Applicant. The Applicant was entrusted with pending criminal cases against a firm called M/s. Unitech. It is stated that he was receiving undue favour and illegal gratification from that firm. During CBI raid of the Applicant, ₹ 2 lakhs were recovered from him. On the above professional misconduct, he was placed under suspension under Rule 15 (1) of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rule, 1980. A preliminary enquiry was conducted wherein IO recommended exemplary punishment. Disciplinary Authority decided to dispense with Disciplinary Enquiry and dismissed him from service by invoking Article 311 (2)
(b) of the Constitution of Order, dated 1-8-2018. Applicant submitted that he was not given adequate opportunity to explain his charge-sheet. Appellate Authority also agreed with DA in dismissing him from service. The main plea of the Applicant is that, reasonable opportunity was not given to him to defend himself which is against principle of natural justice. He relied on the Apex Court judgment in Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab and others [ 2006 (13) SCC 581 ]. In that case also, dismissal took place invoking Article 311 (2) (b). After discussing the matter in that case, Apex Court had given a long appreciation in that case which is reproduced vide Paras. 9, 10 and 11 of that case. In that case also, the Apex Court held that no material is available on record to punish the Applicant. In the case of Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab [ 1991 (1) SCC 362 ], it was said that "it is incumbent on those who support the order of dismissal to show that the satisfaction is based on certain objective facts and is not outcome of the whim or caprice of the concerned Officer". In the case of Union of India and another v. Tulsiram Patel and others [ AIR 1985 SC 1416 ], it is observed that the decisions of Disciplinary Authority under Article 311 (3) is not binding upon the Court so far as its power of Judicial review is concerned and in such a case the Court will strike down the order dispensing with enquiry as also the order imposing penalty. In the instant case, Article 311 (2)
(b) of the constitution was invoked based on preliminary enquiry for Respondents. In the orders of the authority, there is no mention of the raid conducted in the Applicant's resource and any recovery of cash during the raid has also not been mentioned in the preliminary enquiry report. To dispense with enquiry, the DE are merely based on surmise and conjectures. Witnesses may turn in the regular enquiry is only a surmise as no such instance had come to the notice or specifically mentioned during the preliminary enquiry.

IT Rules

Applicant herein, Inspector (Executive) of Delhi Police was punished by dismissing him from service without an enquiry under Article 311 (2)
(b) of the Constitution of India. Disciplinary enquiry can be dispensed with only on grounds of which are robust, clear and substantial. Such a ground is not found in this case. Hence the order of dismissal was set aside, but the Applicant was kept under suspension — This chunk is a section from a judgement where the Tribunal allows an OA setting aside the order of dismissal of a Delhi Police Inspector due to violation of natural justice, as no enquiry was conduc... — Facts: Applicant, Inspector (Executive) of Delhi Police was arrested on the ground that he received illegal gratification from M/s. Unitech. Without holding an enquiry of the charges levelled against him, he was dismissed from service under Article 311 (2)
(b) of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the orders of DA in dismissing him from service and approved by Appellate Authority (AA), the Applicant filed this OA for quashing and setting aside of the impugned orders, dated 8-7-2019 and 1-8-2018 and for reinstatement with consequential benefits. Tribunal noted the case history leading to the dismissal of the Applicant. The Applicant was entrusted with pending criminal cases against a firm called M/s. Unitech. It is stated that he was receiving undue favour and illegal gratification from that firm. During CBI raid of the Applicant, ₹ 2 lakhs were recovered from him. On the above professional misconduct, he was placed under suspension under Rule 15 (1) of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rule, 1980. A preliminary enquiry was conducted wherein IO recommended exemplary punishment. Disciplinary Authority decided to dispense with Disciplinary Enquiry and dismissed him from service by invoking Article 311 (2)
(b) of the Constitution of Order, dated 1-8-2018. Applicant submitted that he was not given adequate opportunity to explain his charge-sheet. Appellate Authority also agreed with DA in dismissing him from service. The main plea of the Applicant is that, reasonable opportunity was not given to him to defend himself which is against principle of natural justice. He relied on the Apex Court judgment in Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab and others [ 2006 (13) SCC 581 ]. In that case also, dismissal took place invoking Article 311 (2) (b). After discussing the matter in that case, Apex Court had given a long appreciation in that case which is reproduced vide Paras. 9, 10 and 11 of that case. In that case also, the Apex Court held that no material is available on record to punish the Applicant. In the case of Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab [ 1991 (1) SCC 362 ], it was said that "it is incumbent on those who support the order of dismissal to show that the satisfaction is based on certain objective facts and is not outcome of the whim or caprice of the concerned Officer". In the case of Union of India and another v. Tulsiram Patel and others [ AIR 1985 SC 1416 ], it is observed that the decisions of Disciplinary Authority under Article 311 (3) is not binding upon the Court so far as its power of Judicial review is concerned and in such a case the Court will strike down the order dispensing with enquiry as also the order imposing penalty. In the instant case, Article 311 (2)
(b) of the constitution was invoked based on preliminary enquiry for Respondents. In the orders of the authority, there is no mention of the raid conducted in the Applicant's resource and any recovery of cash during the raid has also not been mentioned in the preliminary enquiry report. To dispense with enquiry, the DE are merely based on surmise and conjectures. Witnesses may turn in the regular enquiry is only a surmise as no such instance had come to the notice or specifically mentioned during the preliminary enquiry.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text