THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 09.05.2012
+ W.P.(C) 2744/2012
SANJEEV KUMAR ... Petitioner
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Prag Chawla with Mr Sudeep Sudan and
Mr Anil Dabaas
For the Respondent : None
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM 5902/2012 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CM 5901/2012 The delay in re-filing is condoned.
This application stands disposed of.
WP(C) 2744/2012
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.12.2011 passed in OA 4190/2010 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal WP (C) No.2744/2012 Page 1 of 6 Bench, New Delhi, whereby the petitioner's said Original Application had been dismissed.
2. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had sought the quashing and the setting aside of the orders dated 24.08.2009, 02.06.2010 and 07.09.2010 being the charge, the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the order passed by the appellate authority, respectively. The petitioner has been awarded the penalty of forfeiture of four years of approved service permanently, entailing proportionate reduction in the pay of the petitioner. The suspension period was also directed to be regarded as 'period not spent on duty' for all intents and purposes.
3. The incident which gave rise to the aforesaid orders and the aforesaid penalty was one which took place on 19.01.2009. The petitioner was on duty along with government crane No. DL-1LA-6856 vide DD No. 9 dated 19.01.2009. The case against the petitioner was that the crane had moved one LGV (Light Goods Vehicle) bearing No. RJ-07GA-3803 and had brought it opposite Celebration Banquet Hall on Ring Road. There, they threatened the said LGV driver Sh. Sanwar Lal (PW5) and demanded a sum of ` 500/- from him by saying that if his vehicle had been taken to the WP (C) No.2744/2012 Page 2 of 6 police station, he would have to pay a fine of ` 1,500/-. The case against the petitioner is that, after negotiation, the petitioner took a sum of ` 400/- from the said LGV driver and thereafter released the said LGV.
4. PW4 Khushal Singh, who was a Traffic Inspector, was passing on the other side of the road and noticed the said LGV being towed by the said government crane No. DL-1LA-6856. He took a U-turn and, when he intercepted the LGV and made enquiries, he was informed that the petitioner had been given a sum of ` 400/- by the LGV driver and that on the said transaction having taken place, the LGV was released from the crane and the government crane left the scene. However, it has been stated by PW5 in his statement before the enquiry officer that no money was paid by him to the petitioner nor did the petitioner demanded any such sum.
5. The enquiry officer, however, on the basis of the other evidence on record and particularly that of PW4 Inspector Khushal Singh, returned the finding that a sum of ` 400/- had been demanded by the petitioner and had been paid by the LGV driver (PW5 Sanwar Lal) for release of the said vehicle by the said crane. The said PW5 also stated that he had, in fact, WP (C) No.2744/2012 Page 3 of 6 asked the petitioner to return the sum of ` 400/- which he had taken from the LGV driver and that the same was accordingly taken from the petitioner by the said PW5 and returned to the LGV driver.
6. On the basis of the evidence that was placed before the enquiry officer, he submitted a report dated 24.08.2009 in which he found that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. The same were also confirmed by the disciplinary authority and, as indicated above, the disciplinary authority awarded the punishment of forfeiture of four years of approved service permanently, entailing proportionate reduction in the pay of the petitioner. The suspension period was also directed to be regarded as 'period not spent on duty' for all intents and purposes. The appellate authority also concurred with the conclusions arrived at by the disciplinary authority and it is thereafter that the petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of the said OA which has been dismissed by the Tribunal.
7. The only thing to see in this case is as to whether there was some evidence on the basis of which the authorities below could have come to the conclusion that they did and could have awarded the penalty to the WP (C) No.2744/2012 Page 4 of 6 petitioner. It is abundantly clear that although PW5 - the LGV driver - has not supported the case against the petitioner, there is evidence in the form of statement of PW4 Inspector Khushal Singh which does tend to support the case against the petitioner. Therefore, this is clearly not a case of no evidence. It cannot also be said that the findings returned by the enquiry officer as also the disciplinary authority are perverse inasmuch as that the findings are not at all based upon any material on record. In such circumstances, the scope of interference in review, both by the Tribunal as well as by this Court under Article 226, is very limited. When there is some evidence to support the case against the petitioner, it would not be open to the Tribunal or this Court to substitute its views by drawing different inferences, on the basis of the same material, than that arrived at by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. Consequently, this being a case, where there is some evidence, we are not required to interfere with the findings returned by the authorities below.
8. Insofar as the quantum of penalty is concerned, that too has to be considered from the standpoint as to whether the penalty awarded is unconscionable or not. We do not feel that the penalty awarded is so WP (C) No.2744/2012 Page 5 of 6 disproportionate to the charge, which has been proved, that it would shock our conscience. Consequently, insofar as the award of the penalty is concerned also, we see no reason to interfere with the penalty awarded by the disciplinary authority.
9. Thus, there is no merit in this writ petition. The same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J V.K. JAIN, J MAY 09, 2012 SR WP (C) No.2744/2012 Page 6 of 6