Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the orders passed by the tribunal.


Date of decision: July 5, 2023

+ W.P.(C) 8880/2023, CM APPLs. 33544/2023 & 33545/2023




Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the orders passed by the tribunal upholding the decision of the Disciplinary Authority dated 16.12.14, who had imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect.

Facts of the case

The Disciplinary Authority issued an order on December 16, 2014, which the Respondent challenged before the Tribunal. The Disciplinary Authority had imposed a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. In response to the appeal, the Appellate Authority amended the penalty decision by declaring that it will be reduced by one increment without having any cumulative impact in an order dated March 12, 2015. It appears that the respondent sought an additional remedy before the higher authority, which issued a decision on July 3, 2015 denying the proposed remedy.

It should be noted that a chargesheet dated July 26, 2012, was used to launch a departmental investigation against the respondent. It is a given that the Inquiry Officer concluded that the accusations brought against the respondent had not been established in his final judgement. The defendant received a notification from the Disciplinary Authority dated August 14, 2014 asking him to justify why he should not receive the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The investigation report was then sent to the respondent by correspondence dated February 26, 2014. On August 14, 2014, the responder responded to the same.

Analysis and Decision of the court

The court held that – The respondent must be placed in the same position or stage as if no penalty had been meted out to them after the tribunal overturned the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority, and the Higher Authority.

In response to a particular question about whether the Disciplinary Authority had sent the respondent any disagreement notes prior to administering the punishment, the learned counsel for the petitioner responded in the negative. If that is the case, we concur with the Tribunal’s judgement in the contested order. We see no justification for interfering with the same. Thus the petition is dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

click to view the judgement