Testimony Of Undertrial Prisoner Sufficient To Establish Charge: Delhi High Court Upholds Penalty Imposed On Jail Superintendent Over Ill-Treatment & Extortion Charges
The Petition before the Delhi High Court was filed against the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal quashing an order and holding the Officer entitled to all consequential benefits.
The Delhi High Court upheld an order imposing a penalty of stoppage of increments of an Assistant Superintendent of the Tihar Jail and noted that the testimony of one of the undertrial prisoners, on its own, was sufficient to establish the charge on the standard of preponderance of probabilities applicable in departmental proceedings
The Petition before the High Court was filed against the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal) quashing an order and holding the Officer entitled to all consequential benefits.
The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held, “Therefore, even if, for argument’s sake, the deposition of Shri S.K. Matta is disregarded on account of alleged hostility, the testimony of UTP Sarfaraz, standing on its own, was sufficient to establish the charge on the standard of preponderance of probabilities applicable in departmental proceedings. Once there was such reliable evidence on record, it was not open to the learned Tribunal to substitute its own appreciation of evidence for that of the Disciplinary Authorities.”
SC Avnish Ahlawat represented the Petitioner while Advocate Saahila Lamba represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The respondent, Sanjeev Kumar, was serving as an Assistant Superintendent in the Central Jail, Tihar in the year 2003. During his posting in the Jail, three separate complaints were filed by the undertrial prisoners (UTPs), alleging ill-treatment and extortion of money. Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and a charge sheet was issued against him along with a statement of imputation of misconduct, in support of the articles of charge. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of stoppage of two increments in the time scale of pay, permanently, with cumulative effect and adversely affecting his pension.
The respondent, being aggrieved by the penalty order, submitted an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed his appeal but the Tribunal quashed the impugned order. and directed that the respondent would be entitled to all consequential benefits. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Reasoning
Throwing light on the scope of judicial review in such matters, the Bench stated, “The Court does not ordinarily undertake a reevaluation of the evidence adduced and appreciated by the Enquiry Officer and the Competent Authorities. The scope of judicial review is confined to examining whether there has been any procedural irregularity, gross illegality, or manifest perversity in the decision making process. Importantly, the Court cannot reassess the factual matrix or substitute its own conclusions for those of the Disciplinary Authority. The ambit of judicial review is, therefore, confined to examining the correctness of the decision-making process and the fairness of the procedure adopted, as has been held by the Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors., (1995)...”
The Bench referred to the testimony of one of the UTPs, who stated that he had given only the name of the respondent herein as the person who had beaten him and demanded money. He specifically named the respondent and no one else. “This direct and unambiguous attribution cannot be ignored”, the Bench stated while also adding, “ The respondent has further relied upon reports submitted by the Jail Superintendent, which stated that upon medical examination of the UTPs, the allegations were found to be baseless. While such reports do have evidentiary value, the fact remains that UTP Sarfraz appeared before the Enquiry Officer and maintained his complaint. Nothing could be taken from him in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony”, it added.
The Bench was of the view that the UTP had specifically identified the respondent and clarified that he had not named any other officer except the respondent, and thus the testimony recorded in a formal enquiry carried greater probative weight than an initial complaint, particularly when subjected to cross-examination.
As per the Bench, the Impugned Order of the Tribunal suffered from a jurisdictional error in re-appreciating evidence and overlooking relevant material. Allowing the Petition, the Bench quashed the impugned order of the Tribunal and upheld the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
Cause Title: Director General v. Sanjeev Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8630-DB)
Appearance
Petitioner: SC (Services) GNCTD Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate Nitesh Kumar Singh
Respondent: Advocates Saahila Lamba, Shayna Das Pattanayak