The Delhi High Court has clarified that once a competent disciplinary authority consciously exercises its jurisdiction to withdraw charges against an employee, the disciplinary process for that specific incident is concluded. In the absence of any statutory rule expressly permitting the reopening of such concluded proceedings, a fresh inquiry on the same incident cannot be re-initiated. Furthermore, a subordinate authority lacks the jurisdiction to revive or re-initiate disciplinary proceedings that have been dropped by a higher competent authority.
The Court explained that a disciplinary action and findings of guilt cannot be sustained if they are based on an untested and unsubstantiated report, particularly when the author of the report does not depose as a witness and is not subjected to cross-examination. The Court held that a punishment that is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, especially when the proceedings are clouded by contradictions, procedural infirmities, and a lack of contemporaneous evidence, is liable to be set aside as it shocks the conscience of the Court.
The High Court therefore quashed the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order, the second charge sheet, and the disciplinary orders of removal from service. The Court directed that the Petitioners shall be entitled to reinstatement with all notional benefits, including continuity of service and seniority. However, with respect to back wages, the Court held that the Petitioners would be entitled to only 50% of the back wages for the period from the date of their termination until their reinstatement, given that they had not performed their duties during this time.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain observed that the controversy strikes at the legality of the very initiation of departmental proceedings for a second time. The first charge sheet was withdrawn by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD), the highest disciplinary authority, and this was a conscious exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction that concluded the matter. The Bench noted a serious jurisdictional issue, as the second charge sheet was issued by a Regional Manager, an authority subordinate to the CMD, who had already dropped the charges.
The Bench further observed that the second charge sheet contained materially altered and aggravated allegations, such as intoxication, which were introduced after a significant delay and without contemporaneous material, lending force to the plea of arbitrariness and colourable exercise of power. Crucially, the reporter of the incident forming the basis of the second charge sheet, never deposed before the Inquiry Officer, meaning the entire departmental action rested upon an unproved and untested report.
The Bench also gave weight to independent material, such as a police DD entry and depot records, which did not support the management’s version of a scuffle or misconduct. Finally, the Bench found the penalty of removal from service to be grossly disproportionate and discriminatory, shocking the conscience of the Court, especially when another employee in the same incident received only a minor penalty.
Briefly, the Petitioners, who were Conductors with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), were initially issued a charge sheet, jointly with a driver, concerning an incident. The allegations included using unparliamentary language, bolting the Depot Manager’s room, and manhandling him. This charge sheet was based on a report by Surender Singh, ATI. During the subsequent enquiry, Surender Singh denied any manhandling occurred and stated he was compelled to submit his report. Consequently, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD) approved the withdrawal of this charge sheet against the Petitioners.
Thereafter, based on a new report from the Depot Manager, submitted over a year after the incident, a fresh charge sheet was issued by the Regional Manager (North). This second charge sheet omitted the allegation of manhandling but introduced new allegations of shouting, abuse, being in a ‘toxic condition’, and forcibly removing staff. Following a second enquiry, the Petitioners were imposed the penalty of ‘removal from service’, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority. The Petitioners’ challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was also dismissed.
Appearances:
Advocates Dhananjay Singh Sehrawat and Ritika, for the Petitioner
Advocates Avnish Ahlawat, Nitesh Kumar Singh, Aliza Alam and Mohnish Sehrawat, for the Respondent
