Appellate disciplinary powers may sustain a remand order even without citing the exact sub-rule where authority is otherwise clear.

An appellate disciplinary order under the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 was held not to fail merely because it did not cite the precise sub-rule, where the rules otherwise conferred wide power to remand the matter for further inquiry and pass appropriate orders. The omission was treated as non-jurisdictional because the authority's power could be sustained under Rule 25 and no prejudice was shown, since the defence could still be tested in a regular inquiry. The Tribunal erred in treating the omission as fatal, and the remand direction was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority under the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 could set aside the punishment and direct a regular departmental inquiry, even though the order did not expressly mention the precise sub-rule under which it was made.

Analysis: The appellate powers under Rule 25 were read as wide enough to permit remand of the matter for further inquiry and to pass such other orders as the authority deemed fit. The omission to cite the exact sub-rule in the appellate order did not invalidate the order where the power could be sustained under the rules. The Tribunal had erred in treating the omission as a jurisdictional defect. No prejudice was shown to have been caused, as the defence could still be examined in a regular inquiry.

Conclusion: The appellate authority validly exercised its powers to direct a regular departmental inquiry, and the Tribunal's order setting aside that direction was incorrect.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the appellate authority's remand order was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate disciplinary order is not invalid merely because it does not specify the exact sub-rule, if the direction is otherwise supported by the authority's wide enabling powers under the governing rules.

---