DATE: 26/09/2025
COURT: High Court of Delhi
BENCH: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice
Madhu Jain
FACTS:
The respondent, Sanjeev Kumar, was serving
as an Assistant Superintendent in Tihar Jail in 2003. During his posting in
Jail No. 1, three undertrial prisoners (UTPs), Shyamu Samrat, Shankar Singh,
and Sarfaraz filed complaints through their counsels before different courts
alleging extortion and ill-treatment. These complaints were forwarded to the
jail authorities, who submitted reports to the concerned courts in December
2003. A Deputy Superintendent also prepared a report suggesting Sanjeev Kumar’s
possible involvement and recommended his transfer. Based on these complaints,
disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965, and a charge sheet was issued against him.
During the departmental inquiry, only UTP
Sarfaraz appeared and testified that Sanjeev Kumar had beaten him and demanded
Rs. 5,000. His testimony was supported by the report of Deputy Superintendent
S.K. Matta. The Enquiry Officer, relying on these statements and documents,
found the charges proved. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the
penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, adversely
affecting pension. The Appellate Authority upheld this order. Sanjeev Kumar
then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which set aside the
penalty and granted him consequential benefits. Aggrieved, the petitioner
(department) challenged the CAT’s order before the High Court.
ISSUES:
The primary issue was whether the Central
Administrative Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating the
evidence recorded during the departmental proceedings and setting aside the
concurrent findings of the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority, and
Appellate Authority.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The High Court allowed the writ petition,
quashed the Tribunal’s order dated 21.07.2008, and restored the penalty imposed
by the Disciplinary Authority on Sanjeev Kumar, as upheld by the Appellate
Authority.
The Court emphasized that the scope of
judicial review in matters relating to disciplinary proceedings is limited.
Citing precedents such as B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Union of India
v. P. Gunasekaran, the Court reiterated that neither the Tribunal nor the High
Court can act as an appellate authority to reappreciate evidence. Judicial
review is confined to examining the fairness of the procedure, adherence to
principles of natural justice, and the existence of some evidence supporting
the findings. As long as the inquiry is conducted in accordance with law and
findings are based on evidence, the disciplinary authority’s decision is not
open to substitution merely because another view of the evidence is possible.
Applying these principles, the Court found
that there was clear evidence against the respondent. UTP Sarfaraz had
specifically named Sanjeev Kumar during his testimony before the Enquiry
Officer and consistently reiterated that he alone was responsible for the
beating and demand for money. His testimony, subjected to cross-examination,
carried significant probative value and could not be disregarded. Even if the
testimony of Deputy Superintendent S.K. Matta was excluded due to alleged
animosity, the deposition of Sarfaraz was by itself sufficient to establish the
charges on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, which governs
departmental proceedings. The Tribunal, in substituting its appreciation of
evidence for that of the disciplinary authorities, committed a jurisdictional
error.
ANALYSIS:
This case highlights the judicial restraint
required in reviewing disciplinary proceedings against public servants. The
High Court clarified that the Central Administrative Tribunal had overstepped
its jurisdiction by reassessing and substituting its own view of the evidence
for that of the departmental authorities. Drawing from established precedents,
the Court reiterated that judicial review in such matters is not akin to an
appeal and must be confined to examining whether the inquiry adhered to principles
of natural justice, whether due process was followed, and whether there was
some material evidence to support the findings. By reinstating the penalty
imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Court reinforced the principle that
disciplinary matters fall primarily within the domain of the employer, and
courts or tribunals cannot interfere merely because another interpretation of
the evidence is possible.
The judgment also underscores the
evidentiary standards applicable in departmental inquiries, namely the test of
preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The
Court found that the consistent and categorical testimony of UTP Sarfaraz,
corroborated by surrounding circumstances, was sufficient to establish
misconduct on the part of Sanjeev Kumar. Even if the testimony of Deputy
Superintendent S.K. Matta was set aside due to possible bias, the direct
deposition of the complainant provided adequate basis for the disciplinary
findings. The decision reflects the judiciary’s recognition of the need to
balance fairness with institutional discipline in correctional services, while
limiting the scope of external interference in administrative discretion.
info@adhwaitha.com