Kharak Singh vs Uoi & Ors
2009 Latest Caselaw 5209 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                            Date of decision : 15th December, 2009


+                      W.P.(C) 7097/2009

        KHARAK SINGH                      ..... Petitioner
                         Through:     Mr. O.P. Aggarwal &
                                      Mr. Yogendra Kumar,
                                      Advocates
                    versus

        UOI & ORS.                        ..... Respondents
                         Through:     Ms. Jyoti Singh &
                                      Mr. Ankur Chhibber,
                                      Advocates

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
        to see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                           No

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. On 03.08.2009 limited show cause notice was issued in

the writ petition. The order reads as under:-

"Issue notice confined to the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner.

Notice accepted by Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate.

Reply be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, thereto, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.

List on 08th December, 2009."

2. Thus, attempts made by learned counsel for the

petitioner in court today to argue on the merits of the findings

returned against the petitioner pertaining to the 3 Articles of

Charge framed against him have been negated by us.

3. We note that the petitioner has not challenged the order

dated 03.08.2009 and thus judicial discipline prohibits us from

hearing or adjudicating upon the issue whether at all the

findings returned against the petitioner, on merits, are correct

or otherwise.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the

issue of quantum of sentence imposed upon the petitioner.

5. 3 charges were framed against the petitioner which have

been proved during the inquiry proceedings. The same reads

as under:-

"Article of Charge-I

a) The Article of Charge-I against No.941403762 Constable Kharak Singh of CISF Unit ISAC Bangalore who was detailed for „C‟ Shift Duty from 2100 hours of 01.02.2006 to 0600 hours on 02.02.2008 at K.V. gate,

ISAC, had reported late for shift briefing. After shift briefing, No. 941403762 Constable Kharak Singh forcibly took away the duty chart from the shift in charge using abusive language and signed, stands PROVED.

                        Article of Charge-II
            b)     The Article of Charge-II against

No.941403762 Constable Kharak Singh of CISF Unit, ISAC Bangalore who was deployed in "C" Shift duty from 2100 hrs of 1.2.2006 to 0600 hrs on 2.2.2006 at K.V. Gate, ISAC Bangalore failed to wear Bullet Proof Jacket during his duty hours when checked by No. 03260673 SI/Exe R.K. Singh, Shift-in-Charge at 2330 hours on 01.02.2006, stand PROVED.

Article of Charge-III

c) The Article of charge-III against No. 941403762 Constable Kharak Singh of CISF Unit, ISAC Bangalore who was deployed in "C" Shift from 2100 hrs of 1.2.2006 to 0600 hrs on 2.2.2006 at K.V. Gate, ISAC, had assaulted No.03260673 SI/Exe R.K.Singh, Shift-in-Charge by beating with lathi using abusive language and also chased him with rifle under ulterior motive, on the intervening night of 01.2.2006 and 02.02.2006, stands PROVED."

6. It may be noted that SI R.K. Singh was not only the Shift

Incharge but was also the Superior Officer of the petitioner.

7. With reference to the indictment of the petitioner, the

Disciplinary Authority opined that the misdemeanor of the

petitioner in reporting late for briefing, followed by not wearing

Bullet Proof Jacket and lastly in assaulting and thereafter

chasing his Superior Officer with a rifle in hand was a severe

and a gross misbehavior but penalty imposed was reduction of

pay to the minimum in the Time Scale for a period of two

years. The penalty order further proceeds that during said two

years' period the petitioner would not earn any increment and

the reduction will have the effect of postponing future

increments of pay.

8. The effect of the penalty would be that for two years the

petitioner would stand reduced in the minimum of the pay

scale of Rs.3050/- from the existing pay of Rs.3650/-, which he

was earning and getting. He would have stagnated at the

minimum of this scale for two years. After two years he would

have lost two increments and would be placed in the pay of

Rs.3650/-. The financial implication would be loss of salary of

Rs.600/- per month for two years: loss of two increments for all

times to come, but after two years to recommence, the

upward journey in the pay scale with the pay being fixed at

Rs.3650/-.

9. The Appellate Authority was of the opinion that the

penalty imposed was shockingly low and accordingly on

12.01.2007 issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner

requiring him to respond as to why the penalty should not be

enhanced to one of dismissal from service.

10. In notifying the petitioner the reason why the Appellate

Authority was of the tentative view that the penalty should be

enhanced, he was intimated that as a Member of an Armed

Force, assaulting a Superior Officer on duty and chasing him

with a rifle was indeed a misconduct of the gravest category.

11. After receiving the response from the petitioner, the

Appellate Authority inflicted the penalty of dismissal from

service.

12. It may be noted that the appeal filed by the petitioner

against the findings returned and accepted by the Disciplinary

Authority was also decided by the Appellate Authority vide the

same order being the order dated 05.02.2007.

13. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected and the

penalty of dismissal from service was inflicted. The Revision

Petition filed by the petitioner before the Revisional Authority

has been dismissed vide order dated 29.08.2007.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the

Disciplinary Authority took note of the fact that the

misdemeanor of the petitioner was serious and grave and thus

conscious of the gravity of the offence imposed the penalty of

reduction in the Time Scale to the minimum of the pay for a

period of two years. Counsel urges that Appellate Authority

could not have, under the circumstances, enhanced the

penalty.

15. Suffice would it be to state that the Appellate Authority

has taken note of two factors, being that, of the petitioner

being a Member of an Armed Forces (CISF) and the act of

chasing a Superior Officer with a rifle in hand.

16. Indeed, it is an offence which assumes a highest degree

of culpability where a Constable, who is armed, chases his

Superior Officer when he is having his arms and ammunitions

with him.

17. We do not find anything shockingly disproportionate in

the penalty imposed by the Appellate Authority. We concur

with the view taken by the Appellate Authority that the penalty

imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was too low keeping in

view the gravity of the misdemeanor committed by the

petitioner.

18. We find no merit in the writ petition.

19. Dismissed.

20. No costs.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

SURESH KAIT, J.

DECEMBER 15, 2009 'nks'