It is settled law that the Court cannot interfere in the disciplinary/inquiry proceedings at the interim stage.: Delhi High Court
When the Court is of the view that the writ petition is premature, it cannot interfere in the proceedings as upheld by the High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by Justice Manmohan in the case of Satya Prakash Singh v. Central Reserve Police Force (Crpf) &amp; Ors. (W.P. (C) 12632/2021 &amp; C.M.No.39748/2021) The brief facts of the case are that the Present writ petition has been filed challenging the enquiry report dated 22nd September, 2021 and for conducting a fresh and fair enquiry against the Petitioner as also to provide medical treatment to the petitioner till he becomes fit to join duty. Petitioner also challenges the recovery made vide Departmental Letter dated 6th October, 2021. Petitioner further seeks directions to the Respondents to give salaries for the months of December 2020, January 2021, February 2021, and June, 2021 along with arrears of HRA. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner, who is a constable CT/GD in the CRPF was undergoing treatment for Spondylolisthesis and was given rest till 24th December, 2020. He, however, states that the Petitioner received a letter dated 12th December, 2020, whereby he was ordered to join 11th BN Jharkhand immediately which the Petitioner did not follow since the treatment was still continuing. He further states that the Petitioner was not allowed to go to Delhi to get further treatment and the Respondents also did not release the Petitioner’s salary. He also contends that the respondents illegally initiated a false inquiry and also made a false and adverse report dated 22nd. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the Department/CRPF has levelled many serious allegations against the Petitioner. It is alleged that the Petitioner presented his health card, issued by CRPF, in a damaged state as the health card was broken into many pieces. It is further alleged that the Petitioner misled the office while getting himself treated at BMCC and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, by tampering with the dates and documents. October, 2021 in which an order of recovery of Rs.7,15,887/- was issued against the Petitioner and the salary of December 2020, January 2021, February 2021 and June 2021 along with HRA has been adjusted in the said recovery on the ground that the petitioner was under medical treatment and had proceeded on rest and is therefore not liable for payment of salary. After the perusal of the facts and arguments, the Hon’ble Court held, “From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the Petitioner is a habitual offender and the present writ petition is not of such a nature that warrants this Court’s interference at the interim stage. This Court is also of the view that, at this stage, only an enquiry report has been furnished to the petitioner and the disciplinary authority is yet to take a view with regard to enquiry report. Even with regard to deduction of salaries, the petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to raise its grievances. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is premature. Accordingly, the present writ petition along with pending applications is dismissed.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.12632 2021 & C.M.No.39748 2021 SATYA PRAKASH SINGH Through: Mr.Shiv Gaur with Mr.Ajay Pratap .....Petitioner CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE& ORS. Through: Mr.Rajesh Gogna CGSC. Date of Decision: 11th November 2021 HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL JUDGMENT MANMOHAN Jwas given to DIG Establishment) Directorate General of Police CRPF New Delhi for getting his transfer dated 12 07 2018. information was given by the personnel for the drawing house allowance of New Delhi. 11 Battalion Wrong 11 Battalion Wrong letter No. P8 01 2016 Adju 70 dated 22 01 2017. According to the office order number P.8.04 2019 11 Estt.2 dated 19 09 20 of this office the punishment was given to stop the annual increment for two years without cumulative effect. letter was The warning provided under this office’s letter no. 8.17 2019 11 Estt 2 dated 13 02 20. From the aforesaid facts it is apparent that the Petitioner is a habitual offender and the present writ petition is not of such a nature that warrants this Court’s interference at the interim stage. This Court is also of the view that at this stage only an enquiry report has been furnished to the petitioner and the disciplinary authority is yet to take a view with regard to enquiry report. Even with regard to deduction of salaries the petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to raise its grievances. It is settled law that the Court cannot interfere in the disciplinary inquiry proceedings at the interim stage. 2 SCC 179 Para 09]. Consequently this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is premature. Accordingly the present writ petition along with pending applications is dismissed. MANMOHAN J AMIT BANSAL J NOVEMBER 11 2021 Digitally SignedBy:KRISHNA BHOJSigning Date:12.11.202121:08:59Signature Not Verified 