Delhi HC rejects DANICS Officer's challenge to disciplinary penalty

New Delhi [India], March 5 (ANI): The High Court of Delhi has dismissed a writ petition filed by a Selection Grade DANICS (Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Civil Service) officer, who had challenged a disciplinary penalty imposed on him. The Court upheld the earlier decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and refused to interfere with the penalty.
The case relates to actions taken by the officer in 2016 when he was posted as Land Acquisition Collector (LAC). He had passed an order allowing refund of more than ₹3.26 crore in a land acquisition matter and treated the acquisition proceedings as having come to an end. This order was passed after he had already been transferred and after he advanced the date of the hearing in the case.
Following this, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, and two charges were framed. The Inquiry Officer found one charge not proved but held that the officer had acted in haste and without following proper procedure, which amounted to misconduct. Based on this, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty reducing his pay scale for three years, stopping his promotion during that period, postponing his future increments, and affecting his seniority. The Appellate Authority upheld the penalty.
The officer challenged the punishment before the CAT, but the Tribunal dismissed his application in July 2021. The CAT, however, gave him liberty to make a representation seeking a reduction of the penalty. Later, when his representation was rejected, he approached the High Court in 2025, almost four years after the CAT's decision.
The High Court first examined the delay in filing the petition. It held that the officer had not provided any proper explanation for approaching the Court after such a long time. The Court rejected his argument that rejection of his representation gave him a fresh cause of action. It clarified that the liberty granted by the CAT was only for reconsideration of the penalty and did not reopen the entire case. Therefore, the writ petition was barred by delay and laches.
Even on merits, the Court found no reason to interfere. It observed that under the Land Acquisition Act, once land vests in the Government, the Land Acquisition Collector has no authority to restore the land or reverse the acquisition by accepting a refund of compensation. The officer failed to show any legal provision that allowed him to pass such an order.
The Court also rejected his argument that he had acted in a quasi-judicial capacity or based on legal opinion. It stated that in disciplinary matters, the High Court does not act as an appellate authority and can interfere only if there is serious procedural illegality or violation of natural justice, which was not shown in this case.
The plea of discrimination was also dismissed. The officer had claimed that his successor was granted relief. However, the Court held that the successor was not similarly placed because he had only implemented the order and had not passed it. (ANI)