Hc Mohinder Singh vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr.
2006 Latest Caselaw 2256 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as a P.S.O attached to a protected person, by the present writ petition assails the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 20th April, 2004 dismissing OA 1998/2003. Petitioner had filed OA against the order dated 6th March, 2003 passed in appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 5th December, 2002. The Disciplinary Authority had accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the penalty of forfeiture of one year approved service permanently entailing reduction in pay from Rs. 4135/- to Rs. 4050/- per month.

2. Before adverting to the grounds urged by the petitioner in this petition, the facts in brief may be noted:

3. Petitioner was posted in the Security Lines and was entrusted the duties of a P.S.O to a protected person. He was found absent from duty when checked by ACP, 10th Btn, D.A.P on 9th July, 2002 at 14.00 hours. As per the allegations, Daily Register was found concealed under a table and could be found only after some searching. Petitioner had made fake entries for 9th , 10th and 11th July, 2002 well in advance. He had shown himself on duty rest on 8th July, 2002 and 30th June, 2002. These could not be corroborated from the record. Perusal of the daily register further revealed omission to write the time of making the entries. In the circumstances, petitioner was suspended w.e.f 9th July, 2002. Departmental Inquiry was held and he was proceeded for cheating, gross indiscipline, carelessness and dereliction in the discharge of his official duties. He was alleged to have violated the existing rules and instructions with regard to lodging D.D entries in Daily Diary. The Inquiry Officer duly completed the disciplinary inquiry and submitted his findings holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Petitioner was given the copy of the inquiry report with an opportunity to make his representation. In the event, petitioner was awarded the penalty of forfeiture of one year approved service permanently entailing reduction in his pay from Rs. 4135/- p.m. to Rs. 4050/- p.m. He was reinstated in service from suspension and the period of suspension from 9th July, 2002 to 5th December, 2002 was treated as not spent on duty for all intents and purposes. Petitioner had appealed against the said order.

4. Petitioner had claimed that none of the eye witnesses had been produced and only formal witnesses were produced. The documentary and material evidence was lacking. Petitioner contended that the statement of the Driver of the protected person who had deposed that the petitioner was running fever and had gone to the medical dispensary and entry in the register of date being 10th July, 2002 while date actually being 9th July, 2002 was made inadvertently in state of fever was disbelieved. Apart from assailing the order in appeal and the order of the Tribunal on the factual aspects as aforesaid, petitioner had also sought to urge that the punishment imposed was contrary to the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court in Shakti Singh v. UOI and Ors. (WP(C) 2368 of 2000 dated 3.9.2002)

5. Learned Counsel Mr. T.D. Yadav on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner was actually indisposed on the relevant date and was suffering from fever and had submitted the medical certificates as set out in page 23 of the petition. Further the Disciplinary Authority had not considered the representation of the petitioner. Mr. Yadav also submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that Dheeraj Kumar had deposed that Mohinder Singh, petitioner was in bad state of health and was running fever. He had advised him to go to the Doctor at the Dispensary and wrong date on the register had been filled by him inadvertently and in the state of fever on his telling him the date. The Appellate Authority had duly considered these aspects and noted that the petitioner did not tender this explanation to the officer before whom register was produced and who had suspended him. In fact, in his cross-examination, Dheeraj Kumar himself admitted that petitioner did not tell the ACP that he had already written in the register about his movement and written the wrong date being 10th July, 2002 instead of 9th July, 2002 at the behest of Dheeraj Kumar.

6. In these circumstances, the Appellate Authority as also the Tribunal had rightly rejected this plea as an after thought. We may also note that the penalty of forfeiture of one year approved service permanently entailing reduction in his pay from Rs. 4135/- p.m. to Rs. 4050/- p.m cannot be regarded by any means as disproportionate or excessive in the circumstances and having regard to nature of misconduct. The punishment as awarded also does not violate the dictum of Shakti Singh (supra), where the punishment awarded was contrary to Rule 8(d)(ii) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 which prohibit imposition of reduction in pay as well as deferment of increment in future (permanently or temporarily), simultaneously which is not the present case. Accordingly, the said plea is also of no avail.

We find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.