The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a batch of pleas moved by former IPS officer Satish Chandra Verma who had among other reliefs sought quashing of a Departmental Inquiry Report of the Directorate General, ITBP, Ministry of Home Affairs and an August 2022 order dismissing him from service.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held, “The Supreme Court of India has held that normally, there should be no interference by the High Court…with the factual findings in a departmental enquiry unless the Court finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. Clearly, this case does not fall within the category of cases where the findings returned by the Inquiry Authority are based on no  evidence. Further, in view of the fact that the Petitioner has not been able to show any procedural irregularity or violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings returned by the Inquiry Authority or the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority”.

“…we find no merit in the Writ Petition…The same is accordingly dismissed,” the court said.

Verma was part of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Gujarat HC for investigating a 2004 incident where four persons, “including Ishrat Jahan were killed in a police firing”. He was thereafter posted as Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation (NEEPCO) in Guwahati. He was dismissed from service after a departmental inquiry found him guilty of various charges, including “interacting with public media” on March 2 and 3, 2016 with respect to the 2004 incident investigation.

The HC noted that the main challenge by Verma was that the Inquiry Authority and the Disciplinary Authority relied upon unauthorised video footage “purportedly downloaded from YouTube and neither footage nor the transcript has been proved”.The bench however noted that Verma had “not contented at any point and even before us (HC) that he had not interacted with the media on 02.03.2016 and 03.03.2016”; in fact there was a  “clear admission” by him that he did interact with the media.

“It is also not in dispute that he did not have any prior permission or authorisation for the interaction. Though an attempt was made to contend that the media persons forcibly entered the premises and started questioning him but this contention is not substantiated by the record. On the contrary the same is clearly negated from the fact that in the video petitioner is seen clearly sitting at a place with the microphone attached to his lapel and is answering questions. Copy of the Video footage along with its transcript was provided to the Petitioner. At no point of time has the petitioner disputed the contents of either the footage or the transcript. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the contents are doctored, edited or altered,” the HC said.

It also noted that Verma was provided a copy of the video and its transcript and he was given “an opportunity to raise objections to the same” but he did not raise objections. The court observed that Verma had “not denied the interaction with the media, he has also not denied that he did not have any permission or authorisation to speak to the media”. It also said that Verma had also not denied that “he did speak about the encounter and issues that were not within the sphere of his duties at NEEPCO as CVO, NEEPCO”.

“Clearly the interaction with the media was not in the Bonafide discharge of his duties as CVO NEEPCO. He also did not specify that the views expressed by him were his own and not that of the Government,” the HC observed.

The HC observed that Verma had contended that it was his “duty to safeguard the prosecution case that he had investigated as an officer of the High Court of Gujarat in an extraordinary situation when people connected with the ruling party were speaking against the prosecution case of the Government” and that the CBU was silent while a “sustained media campaign” raised doubts upon the prosecution’s case. The court said this “clearly shows” that Verma himself relied on the video footage to justify the media interaction.

It also “dismissed as infructuous” Verma’s other pleas wherein one of them  sought quashing of July 22, 2021 judgment by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench and charge memo of August 2018. In another plea he had  sought quashing of another Judgment dated 22.07.2021, of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench and of adverse entries against him in his annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 2015 – 2016. In another plea he sought quashing of another Judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench and of charge memo of May 2016. “The same are accordingly dismissed as infructuous,” the HC said.