Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a police constable in Delhi, was dismissed from service after disciplinary proceedings found him guilty of using abusive language against a superior officer. The Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, as disciplinary authority, disagreed with the inquiry officer's findings that the first charge of facilitating an undertrial prisoner to drink alcohol was not proved and the second charge of abusing a superior was only partly proved. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice and subsequently dismissed the appellant. The appellant's appeal and revision were unsuccessful, and the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his original application. In the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged the competence of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, the validity of the show cause notice, and the proportionality of the punishment. The Court held that the Additional Deputy Commissioner was competent to dismiss a constable because Rule 4 of the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980 made him an appointing authority, and Section 19 of the General Clauses Act, 1887 allowed a deputy to exercise the powers of a superior. On the show cause notice, the Court acknowledged that ordinarily reasons must be given when disagreeing with the inquiry officer, but on the facts, because only a partial charge of abusive language was accepted, the notice was not vague. The Court found the punishment of dismissal disproportionate to the gravity of the charge, noting that the nature of the abusive language was not disclosed and that each case must be judged on its own facts. It set aside the dismissal and directed imposition of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The appellant was denied back wages because he was responsible for initiation of the proceedings, but all other consequential benefits were granted. The appeal was allowed with no costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Competence of Additional Deputy Commissioner - Power to Dismiss Constable - Delhi Police Act, 1978 Section 11; General Clauses Act, 1887 Section 19; Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980 Rule 4; Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 Rule 6 - The Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police was held to be competent to dismiss a constable because Rule 4 made him an appointing authority and Section 19 of the General Clauses Act permitted a deputy to exercise powers of the superior. The court found no lack of authority and upheld the competence of the disciplinary authority. Held that the dismissal order was not void for want of authority. (Paras 1-3) B) Service Law - Disciplinary Enquiry - Show Cause Notice on Disagreement with Inquiry Officer - Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 Rule 6 - The disciplinary authority must give specific reasons in show cause notice when disagreeing with the inquiry officer's findings, otherwise the notice becomes an empty formality causing grave prejudice. However, because the only charge accepted was partial proof of abusive language, the show cause notice was not vague on the facts. Held that the show cause notice was not vitiated by error of law. (Paras 2-4) C) Service Law - Proportionality of Punishment - Dismissal for Abusive Language - Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 Rule 6 - Dismissal from service for using abusive language against a superior officer was harsh and disproportionate; the nature of the abusive language was not stated and each case depends on its own facts. The court substituted dismissal with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, denying back wages because the appellant was responsible for initiation of proceedings. Held that the appeal was allowed with no costs. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police is competent to dismiss a constable; whether show cause notice without reasons for disagreeing with inquiry officer is valid; whether dismissal from service is proportionate to charge of using abusive language against superior officer
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Dismissal order set aside. Directed disciplinary authority to impose stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. No back wages but all other consequential benefits. No costs.
Law Points
- Disciplinary authority must give reasons in show cause notice when disagreeing with inquiry officer
- Additional Deputy Commissioner is appointing authority
- Section 19 General Clauses Act allows deputy to exercise powers of superior
- punishment must be proportionate to misconduct
- dismissal for abusive language disproportionate
- no back wages if employee responsible for delay
