"Disparaging Action": Delhi HC Sets Aside Penalty Against Officer Of DGBR, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost On Dept

The Division Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said this case is a glaring example of victimizing the petitioner officer "maliciously", "malafidely" and with a "predetermined mind".

In this case, the petitioner, an Assistant Executive Engineer in Border Road Engineering Service, had filed a petition seeking to quash a Memorandum dated November 29, 2012, a Charge Sheet, a Tentative Disagreement Note dated July 11, 2017, and an Order dated October 26, 2017, which imposed a penalty on him for alleged irregularities in a recruitment process.

A Preliminary Enquiry was conducted, followed by a Departmental Enquiry where the petitioner refuted all charges and examined witnesses. The Inquiry Officer had concluded that the charges were not proved. However, despite this, the petitioner faced a penalty of recovery of an amount from his salary, which was later quashed by the High Court.

The petitioner claimed that senior officers, displeased with the High Court's decision, had framed false allegations against him. The petitioner also expressed grievances regarding the blocking of his promotion, and a Contempt Petition filed by the petitioner was pending in the Gauhati High Court.

In response to the petitioner's Contempt Petition, respondent no. 1 had placed a Tentative Disagreement Note and directed the petitioner to submit a representation. The petitioner had refuted all allegations in his representation. The petitioner had also filed a petition challenging the penalty imposed on him after a recruitment process was found to be tainted with irregularities. The petitioner had contended that the Tentative Disagreement Note was based on fallacious contradictions and lacked evidence. The petitioner claimed that the Disciplinary Authority's decision to impose the penalty was unjustified and violated his right to a speedy enquiry guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.

Advocate Tapan Das appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Ruchir Mishra appeared for the Respondents.

Court’s observations:

Regarding the penalty, the petitioner had faced two stages of Departmental Enquiry, and in both stages, he was found not at fault. However, the Disciplinary Authority had disagreed with the findings on one of the charges, citing contradictions in the statements of the petitioner and his witnesses. The Court found the Disagreement Note to be based on no evidence and lacking proper justification.

The Court also noted that the visual inspection of the revaluated Answer Sheets did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim of wrong evaluation, making the reasoning vague and unsubstantiated.

Overall, the Court found several infirmities in the disciplinary proceedings, including lack of evidence to support the penalty imposed on the petitioner, and had concluded that the petitioner's claim for quashing the disciplinary proceedings had merit. The petitioner had been charged with incorrect evaluation of answer sheets in a recruitment process. However, the Inquiry Officer had found the charges "not proved" due to lack of evidence. Despite this, the Disciplinary Authority had issued a Tentative Disagreement Note, which showed a pre-determined mindset and violated the principles of natural justice.

The Court further found that the Disciplinary Order imposing the penalty was not sustainable as it was based on no evidence. It also noted the violation of principles of natural justice and discrimination in the treatment of the petitioner. Therefore, the Court set aside the Disciplinary Order and granted all consequential reliefs to the petitioner.

The Court found that the petitioner was victimized maliciously and with a predetermined mind. The Court emphasized that the Disciplinary Authority should base its decisions on reasonable grounds and without personal bias or vindictiveness.

“Respondent’s insistence to put a Disagreement Note despite the findings of charges “not proved” by Inquiry Reports, only reflects the predetermined mind and mala fide of the respondents to impose penalty.”

Due to the unjust actions of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner suffered mental agony and incurred expenses during a prolonged legal battle.

“The exceptional circumstances of this case justifies resort to the writ jurisdiction of this court as the petitioner has raised grounds of discriminatory treatment when compared to the other members of the BOO, injustice caused in view of inordinate delays and violation of principles of natural justice and fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

As a result, the Court directed the respondents to pay Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation to the petitioner ordering that the Department would initially bear the costs, but they could recover the same from the officers responsible for the unjust actions.

Cause Title: Nasimuddin Ansari v. Union of India & Ors.

Click here to read/download Judgment