Delhi High Court
Director General (Prison) vs Satbir Singh on 20 October, 2010
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 20th October, 2010
+ W.P.(C) 13978/2009
DIRECTOR GENERAL(PRISON) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.V.K. Tandon, Advocate
versus
SATBIR SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Kishore Kumar Patel,
Advocate
W.P.(C) 14169/2009
DIRECTOR GENERAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.V.K. Tandon, Advocate
versus
SATPAL DAHIYA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Kishore Kumar Patel,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. The respondents in the two captioned writ petitions
were working as warders at the Central Prison Tihar and have
been indicted for the following misdemeanour:-
A. Respondent Satpal Dahiya was caught smuggling
into the prison cells of Tihar Jail, 8 pouches of Swagat Brand
Tobacco and 3 packets of Shikhara Gutkha, which were hidden
in his shoes.
B. Respondent Satbir Singh was caught smuggling into
the prison cells of Tihar Jail, 10 pouches of Tobacco which were
hidden in his shoes.
2. We need not note the evidence held incriminating
against the respondents because learned counsel for the
respondents admitted their guilt and even otherwise we may
note that the respondents have accepted the finding rendered
against them by the Tribunal that there is enough evidence to
nail their guilt. The Original Applications filed by the
respondents have succeeded only on the question of quantum
of punishment. Vide orders impugned in the two writ petitions,
the Tribunal has held that the penalty of dismissal from service
imposed upon the respondents is disproportionate to the
gravity of offence and as a result the penalty has been set
aside with a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a
fresh penalty order keeping in view penalties imposed upon
other persons who were found indulging in similar
misdemeanours. As regards how the interregnum period i.e.
the period between the dates they were dismissed from
service till fresh order is passed should be treated has been
left open, to be decided by the Disciplinary Authority.
3. We may reproduce in a tabular form the date of the
incident, name of the offender, nature of the offence and the
punishment awarded to other similar delinquent employees, in
respect whereof the Tribunal has directed, punishment
imposed upon them to be taken into account while leaving
fresh penalty upon the respondents. The chart reads as
under:-
Sl. Date Name Attempt Punishment
No. Awarded
1. 20.09.02 Ishwar Singh 3 packets Reduction of
(NO) Rajdarbar pay by one
Gutkha. stage for
three years.
2. 1.10.02 Trilokchand (NO) 10 packets of Reduction by
Nevla Brand in one stage for
shoes. three years.
3. 1.10.02 Jaikaran (NO) 2 packets of Withholding
Nevla in one increment
underwear for two years
with
cumulative
effect.
4. 3.8.06 Nathi Lal 4 packets of Reduction of
(Warder) Nevla Tobacco pay for three
and 3 Biris years.
5. 28.8.06 Prahlad Sharma Entered in Reduction to
(Warder) Deodhy with 10 two stages for
Packets Swagat period of
Brand Tobacco, three years
9 Packets Nevla with
Brand, 1 Packet cumulative
Commando effect.
Cigarette, 6
Packets
Rajnigandha, 6
Packets Tulsi
Zarda
6. 20.10.06 Jaipal (Barber) 2 Packets of Withholding of
Swagat brand two
Tobacco increments for
two years
without
cumulative
effect.
7. 31.10.06 Govind Thakur One puriya Reduction of
containing pay in lower
crushed scale for five
material stages.
probably pieces
of Sim Cards
8. 24.5.07 Savitri 1 packet Swagat Reduction of
(Sweeper) Tobacco lower stage of
pay by one
stage for one
year.
9. 27.5.08 Dadan 11 bottles of Mc Removal
Choudhary dowell No.1 modified by
(Warder) whiskey reduction by
three stages
for period of
three year.
10. 1.2.09 Kalu Ram ½ packet Reduction by
(Sweeper) tobacco in one stage for
underwear period of one
year.
4. It may be noted that save and except Prahlad
Sharma, Dadan Chaudhary and Nathi Lal who were warders, all
others are much lower in status to warders and we highlight
this to bring home the point that a warder commits a graver
misconduct, for the same act vis-à-vis a sweeper or a barber,
keeping in view that the job of a warder is to maintain
discipline in the jail.
5. We note that Prahlad Sharma, a warder, was
smuggling in much more offending material and was visited
with the penalty of reduction of pay by 2 stages for a period of
3 years with cumulative effect. For attempting to smuggle
lesser quantity of offending material, Nathi Lal, a warder was
visited with the penalty of reduction of pay for 3 years, but
without cumulative effect.
6. We also further note that it appears to be a case
where lesser penalties are not having the desired effect.
7. We have noted the fact in paras 4, 5 and 6 above
for the guidance of the Disciplinary Authority who needs to
consider and give reasons for his decision, while choosing the
appropriate penalty, while factoring the penalties imposed in
the past for similar misdemeanour and the lack of impact
thereof and thus the requirement to impose a stiff penalty, but
which should not be of a kind where the respondents are out of
job.
8. We concur with the reasoning of the Tribunal that
keeping in view the penalties imposed in the past and even
otherwise, for the misdemeanours alleged, the penalty of
dismissal from service is disproportionate.
9. We dismiss both the writ petitions. At the
remanded stage the Disciplinary Authority would pass an order
imposing an adequate penalty and for quantum whereof
reasons shall be given; the penalty would be any as would be
found appropriate, but would not be of a kind where the
respondents lose their job. The Disciplinary Authority would be
guided by the instant decision while passing the order
imposing penalty. Needless to state it is left for the
Disciplinary Authority to decide as to how the interregnum
period has to be accounted for.
10. The writ petitions are dismissed.
11. No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
OCTOBER 20, 2010
mm
