In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that had earlier exonerated a Tihar Jail officer accused of misconduct. The bench, comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain, ruled on September 26, 2025, that the Tribunal had overstepped its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence in a departmental inquiry.
Background
The case dates back to 2003, when Sanjeev Kumar, then serving as an Assistant Superintendent at Tihar Jail, was accused of mistreating undertrial prisoners. Three inmates-Shyamu Samrat, Shankar Singh, and Sarfaraz-filed complaints through their lawyers before different trial courts, alleging beatings and extortion.
Reports were sought by the trial courts from the jail authorities. While medical checks suggested the allegations were not substantiated in two cases, Sarfaraz persisted with his claim. A departmental inquiry followed, and in 2005, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of permanently stopping two increments in Kumar’s pay, which also affected his pension. His appeal was rejected in 2006.
Unhappy with the punishment, Kumar approached the CAT in 2007. The Tribunal, in 2008, quashed the punishment order, terming the evidence insufficient and directed that he be given full service benefits.
Court’s Observations
The High Court observed that while judicial review is available in disciplinary cases, it does not mean courts or tribunals can act as appellate bodies to re-examine evidence. Citing the Supreme Court's guidance in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, the bench stressed that the role of judicial review is limited to checking whether procedures were fair, not to re-assess facts.
"The Tribunal failed to appreciate that testimony recorded during a formal enquiry carries greater weight than an initial unsigned complaint," the bench noted.
The judges highlighted that UTP Sarfaraz had consistently named Kumar during the enquiry as the officer responsible for assault and a demand of Rs. 5,000. His testimony, even when cross-examined, remained firm.
"This direct and unambiguous attribution cannot be ignored," the bench remarked.
On the argument that another officer, Deputy Superintendent S.K. Matta, bore animosity towards Kumar, the Court said no substantial proof had been presented. Even if his testimony was set aside, Sarfaraz's deposition alone was sufficient under the standard of "preponderance of probabilities" used in service inquiries.
Decision
Concluding the matter, the Delhi High Court quashed the Tribunal's 2008 order and restored the original punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
"The impugned order suffers from a jurisdictional error in re-appreciating evidence and overlooking relevant material. The penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority stands restored," the bench declared.
With that, Sanjeev Kumar's penalty of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect, adversely impacting his pension, remains in place.
The court did not impose any costs.
Case Title:- Director General vs. Sanjeev Kumar
Case Number:- W.P.(C) 6860/2009 & CM 2099/2009