The Delhi High Court has allowed the writ petition filed by Rajesh Choudhary, a Senior Assistant Manager (General) with the Central Warehousing Corporation, and set aside the orders imposing the penalty of removal from service. Justice Sanjeev Narula, in a judgment pronounced on 29th April, 2026 in W.P.(C) 14348/2023, held that the gravest charge of illegal gratification (Article III) was unsustainable on the material on record, as the inquiry report, disciplinary authority and appellate authority had proceeded on inconsistent and insufficient reasoning. The Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service for the purposes of seniority, length of service and retiral entitlements, while granting liberty to the Corporation to reconsider the question of penalty limited only to the surviving lesser lapses under Article I and the second limb of Article II, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The disciplinary proceedings originated from a charge memorandum dated 22nd December, 2020. Three articles of charge were framed against the petitioner while he was posted as Warehouse Manager at CW Hanumangarh-II. Article I alleged improper deployment of a casual labourer at the weighbridge; Article II alleged that he was found sleeping during working hours and had left the station without permission on 11th September, 2020 after marking attendance; and Article III alleged receipt of illegal gratification from traders, influence over truck unions to reduce freight rates and sharing of margins, along with receipt of â‚ą75,000 from one Kanhaiya Lal and failure to explain further credits of â‚ą1,13,610. The inquiry officer held Article I and Article II proved and Article III partly proved, noting that while the transfer of â‚ą75,000 was suspicious, there was no material evidence of sharing of margins, illegal gratification or any vigilance angle. Despite this qualified finding, the disciplinary authority treated the acceptance of gratification as fully established and imposed the penalty of removal from service by order dated 29th November, 2022. The Executive Committee, in appeal, upheld the same by order dated 18th September, 2023, without independent scrutiny of the internal inconsistencies in the inquiry report.
Justice Narula observed that a departmental inquiry is not a criminal trial and the standard is one of preponderance of probabilities, yet findings cannot rest on surmises or conjectures. The Court noted that Article III, as framed, was a specific charge of bribery linked to official favours, but the inquiry report itself recorded that there was no material evidence of sharing of margins or illegal gratification and that no vigilance angle was observed. The leap from the mere transfer of ₹75,000 to a conclusion of “clear case of bribery” was held to be legally unsustainable in the absence of any rational evidentiary link between the receipt and any proved act of official favour or quid pro quo. The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority compounded the error by proceeding as if the corruption charge stood fully proved, without confronting the limitations recorded in the inquiry report itself. The Court clarified that even an unexplained transfer, while raising suspicion, cannot by itself establish bribery unless connected to the specific acts alleged in the charge.
On the remaining charges, the Court found that the allegation of sleeping on duty was based on inconsistent descriptions in the inquiry report (such as “lying on the cot”, “sleeping on the cot” or “stayed in LWB”) and did not adequately engage with the petitioner’s defence of back pain supported by medical records. The second limb of Article II regarding absence without permission on 11th September, 2020 was held to disclose a limited lapse, though the petitioner had applied for station leave. Article I was found to reflect an irregularity in deployment and supervision rather than grave misconduct involving dishonesty. The Court held that once the corruption finding under Article III was set aside, the extreme penalty of removal could not be sustained on the basis of these surviving lesser lapses alone.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed. The impugned orders of removal and rejection of appeal were quashed. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service. Liberty was granted to Respondent No.2 to reconsider the question of penalty limited only to the surviving misconduct under Article I and the second limb of Article II, confined to the existing record and after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Any such fresh decision shall be taken within eight weeks from reinstatement, failing which the question of back wages and monetary claims shall be decided within a further six weeks in accordance with law. No de novo inquiry was permitted, and the findings on the corruption charge and the “sleeping on duty” limb were set aside.
Case Title: Rajesh Choudhary v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 14348/2023
Date of Judgment: 29th April, 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula
Click HERE for full Judgment
Lawcutor 