W.P.(C) 10959/2026 Page 1 of 5 $~84 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010352522026 + W.P.(C) 10959/2026, CM APPL. 50739-50740/2026 DINESH KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Dwivedi, Mr. Aman Verma and Mr. Sheeshpal, Advocates. versus DELHI SC ST OBC MINORITIES AND HANDICAPPED FINANCIAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. DSFDC & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC for GNCTD Services with Mr. N.K. Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates for R- 2. Ms. Pushti Gupta, SPC with Mr. Lovekesh Aggarwal, GP for R-3 to 5. Ms. Harshita Nathrani, Advocate for Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Standing Counsel (Civil) GNCTD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 04.08.2026 1. The Petitioner, a former Upper Division Clerk, was employed with the Delhi SC/ST/OBC/Minorities & Handicapped Financial & Development Corporation Limited1, a Government of NCT of Delhi undertaking. 1 “DSFDC” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 11:45:37 W.P.(C) 10959/2026 Page 2 of 5 2. While serving as a Dealing Assistant/LDC at the Branch Office, Nand Nagri, the Petitioner was posted in the Entrepreneur Guidance Cell, where his duties were confined to receiving loan applications and forwarding them to the designated Field Inspector for field verification. In discharge of these duties, he received a loan application dated 19th June, 2003, in the name of one Mr. Rishi Pal, seeking financial assistance of ₹50,000/- under the Safai Karamchari Division Composite Loan Scheme, and forwarded the same for field verification in the ordinary course of business. 3. According to the Respondent Corporation, the said loan was sanctioned on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, and it was later discovered that the purported borrower did not, in fact, reside at the address mentioned in the loan records. 4. Consequently, on a complaint lodged by the then General Manager of DSFDC, FIR No. 45/2007 dated 9th October, 2007, came to be registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Branch, GNCTD, for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 5. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner was arrested and placed under suspension with effect from 24th November, 2008, by Office Order dated 27th November, 2008, issued under Rule 10(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. 6. The Petitioner’s suspension was subsequently revoked by Office Order dated 12th March, 2013, and he was reinstated in service, without prejudice to the pending criminal and departmental proceedings. Thereafter, the disciplinary proceedings continued alongside the criminal prosecution. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 11:45:37 W.P.(C) 10959/2026 Page 3 of 5 7. Counsel for the Petitioner points out that final arguments in the criminal trial had concluded and judgment had been reserved on 26th November, 2025. However, prior to pronouncement of the said judgment, the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 15th January, 2026, relying upon the findings recorded in the departmental enquiry, held the charges against the Petitioner to be proved and imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from service. 8. Insofar as the criminal proceedings are concerned, the Special Judge (PC Act), by judgment dated 17th January, 2026, acquitted the Petitioner after a full-fledged trial. In relation to the Petitioner, the Trial Court observed as under: “285. As regards accused Dinesh Kumar Gupta, the prosecution has established that he processed the loan file in his capacity as Dealing Assistant. However, mere processing of official files, without proof of mala fide intention or conscious facilitation of fraud, does not constitute a criminal offence. The prosecution has failed to prove that it was his duty to verify the Form Issue Register or that he knowingly suppressed material discrepancies. No evidence has been led to show that he forged any document; or that he processed the loan application form Ex. PW-3/B2 with mala fide intention knowing that the same is filed to seek a loan fraudulently; or that it was Dinesh Kumar Gupta who had signed on Ex. PW-17/B verifying the details of the application post LSC meeting; or that he received any illegal gratification; or acted in collusion with other accused. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to establish his criminal liability beyond reasonable doubt.” 9. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that both the criminal prosecution and the departmental proceedings emanate from the very same transaction and are founded upon an identical set of facts. It is contended that the evidence adduced by the Department in both proceedings was substantially the same. In particular, four out of the five witnesses examined on behalf of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 11:45:37 W.P.(C) 10959/2026 Page 4 of 5 the Department in the disciplinary enquiry also deposed during the criminal trial. It is, therefore, urged that the criminal and departmental proceedings were based on the same evidence and witnesses. Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Trial Court has categorically found that there was no evidence of forgery, dishonest intention, illegal gratification or collusion on the part of the Petitioner. In these circumstances, where both proceedings arise from the same investigation and are founded upon substantially identical evidence, the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings cannot be sustained. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan2. 10. The aforesaid submissions, prima facie, do merit consideration. At the same time, this Court cannot overlook the fact that the impugned order is appealable under the applicable service rules and that the Petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy before the competent Appellate Authority. 11. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that despite submission of the representation dated 5th February, 2026, no decision has been taken thereon. It is accordingly urged that the said representation be treated as a statutory appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, and that the grounds urged in the present writ petition be treated as supplementary grounds in support thereof. 12. The representation dated 5th February, 2026, placed on record as Annexure P-6, is addressed to the Disciplinary Authority. Counsel for the Respondents, on instructions, submits that the same shall be placed before the competent Appellate Authority in accordance with law. The Appellate 2 2023 INSC 1047 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 11:45:37 W.P.(C) 10959/2026 Page 5 of 5 Authority shall treat the said representation as the Petitioner’s statutory appeal and consider the grounds urged in the present writ petition as supplementary grounds thereto. A reasoned order shall be passed in accordance with law. 13. The Petitioner is stated to have suffered a brain stroke, and the discharge summary issued by the Department of Neurosurgery, Max Super Speciality Hospital, has been placed on record. Having regard to the Petitioner’s medical condition, the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal within a period of two months from today. 14. It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open. The observations made herein are only for the purpose of disposal of the present petition and are prima facie in nature. The Appellate Authority shall independently consider and decide the appeal on its own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. 15. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms, along with the pending application(s). SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 4, 2026 nk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 11:45:37