The Court held that an enquiry is not mandatory if the disciplinary authority does not desire one under Rule 37 of the CISF. The writ petition was rejected as the imposition of minor punishment followed correct procedure and evidence sufficed for action.
Writ petition rejected; minor punishment order upheld; pending application disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV RANJAN SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anurag OJha & Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Advocates versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC along with Mr. Anil Dabas Advocates for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. Sanjay Kumar for DMRC.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
O R D E R % 09.09.2016
“37. Procedure for imposing minor penalties.-(1) No order imposing any of minor penalties specified in rule 34 shall be made except after-
(a) informing the enrolled member in writing of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is W.P.(C) 8006/2016 page 1 of 5
proposed to be taken and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he wishes to make against the proposal;
(b) holding an inquiry, if the disciplinary authority so desires, in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (22) of rule 36;
(c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the enrolled member under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration; and
(d) recording the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government servant under clause (a) of that sub-rule to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the government servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding 3 years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (22) of rule 36 before making any order imposing on the enrolled member of the Force any such penalty.
(3) The records of othe proceedings in such cases shall include-
(i) a copy of the intimation to the enrolled member so charged of the proposal to take action against him;
(ii) a copy of the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him;
page 2 of 5
W.P.(C) 8006/2016
his representation, if any;
(iii) the evidence produced during the enquiry, if any; (iv) the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and (vi) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefore.”
the petitioner.
CM No. 33227/2016 (stay)
Dismissed as infructuous.
INDIRA BANERJEE, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
SEPTEMBER 09, 2016
rs
W.P.(C) 8006/2016
page 5 of 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a full-fledged enquiry is necessary for awarding a minor penalty in service matters.
Whether the disciplinary authority acted illegally in imposing minor punishment without holding an enquiry.
Whether the Writ Court should interfere with the order of minor punishment imposed on the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajiv Ranjan Singh
Union of India
DMRC
Indira Banerjee
V. Kameswar Rao
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
