Delhi High Court
Dharmendra Singh vs Uoi & Ors. on 25 April, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: April 25, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 520/2011
DHARMENDRA SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Avni Singh, Advocate.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Kunal Kahlon, Advocate for
Mr.Jatan Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)
1. On 28.1.2011 respondents were granted 4 weeks' time to
file a counter affidavit.
2. None being filed, vide order dated 3.3.2011, 10 days'
time was further granted to file a counter affidavit. Matter was listed
on 14.3.2011.
3. On said date last opportunity, by extending time by 4
weeks, was granted to do the needful; renotifying the matter for
today. Counter affidavit has not yet been filed.
4. It is apparent that in spite of 3 opportunities granted,
counter affidavit has not been filed. Right to file counter affidavit is
closed.
WP(C) 520/2011 Page 1 of 5
5. The issue is short.
6. Petitioner's counsel concedes the misdemeanour but
questions the penalty levied urging the same to be shockingly
disproportionate.
7. We may note that on 21.1.2011 we had noted as
aforesaid requiring respondents to file a counter affidavit limited to
the issue of proportionality of the penalty and we are pained that the
counter affidavit has not been filed.
8. Factual issues are not in dispute and the only thing which
has resulted by way of counter affidavit not being filed is, the Court
not having the benefit of the reasoning of the Revisional Authority to
sustain the enhanced penalty of compulsory retirement inflicted upon
the petitioner.
9. Undisputed facts are that on account of engagement
ceremony of his brother, petitioner had applied for one day's casual
leave on 24.2.2001. The same was declined with a direction to the
petitioner to proceed to Srinagar.
10. There was no urgent requirement for the petitioner to be
at Srinagar. It was a routine order requiring him to proceed to
Srinagar.
11. The petitioner had a verbal altercation with his superior
officer. Certain heated words were exchanged. Since the casual
leave was not sanctioned, in anger and disgust, the petitioner picked
up his application seeking casual leave and on the aforesaid incident
a charge-sheet was served upon him listing 3 Articles of Charge as
under:-
" Article-I
That No.903020261 Const.(GD) Dharmendra Singh who
was posted in the A/66 Bn. in the capacity of Constable and
while he was attached with Bn.Hqr. at Pappan Kalan, New
WP(C) 520/2011 Page 2 of 5
Delhi, has committed an act of misconduct u/s 11(1) of
CRPF Act 1949 in that on 24.2.1001 being a member of the
Force, disobeyed the orders of the Adjutant 66 Bn. by
denying to proceed to A/66 Bn. and used indecent
languages and shouted in front of other Jawans.
Article-II
That said Force No.903020261 Const.(GD) while posted in
the 66 Bn. in the capacity of Const.(GD) on 24.02.2001 and
while he was attached with the Bn. Hqr. being a member of
the force has committed an act of misconduct and
indiscipline under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act 1949 in
that he has taken away official documents from the office
of the Sub-Inspector (Adjutant) without permission and till
date not returned the same to the office of the Sub-
Inspector (Adjutant).
Article-III
That No.903020261 Const.(GD) Dharmendra Singh who
was posted in the A/66 Bn. in the capacity of Constable and
while he was attached with the Bn.Hqr. at Pappan Kalan,
New Delhi, has committed an act of misconduct u/s 11(1)
of CRPF Act 1949 in that on 24.2.2011 being a member of
the Force, in that he create pressure on the Adjutant of the
Unit for sanction of leave on one after another pretext and
threatened the Adjutant of the Unit with dire consequences
in case of non-sanctioning of leave."
12. At the inquiry the petitioner was indicted, but not fully
pertaining to Charge No.I. Pertaining to said charge it was held that
the petitioner spoke loudly but did not use uncivilized language.
Articles II and III of the charge were held to be proved.
13. Keeping in view the background under which the
petitioner had a verbal altercation with superior officer, vide order
dated 20.3.2004, the Commandant i.e. the Disciplinary Authority
levied the penalty of withholding 1 annual increment for 2 years with
cumulative effect.
WP(C) 520/2011 Page 3 of 5
14. Petitioner's appeal against the penalty levied was
rejected vide order dated 3.8.2004.
15. Petitioner filed a Revision in which the Revisional
Authority opined that the penalty was inadequate and thus issued a
show-cause notice dated 23.1.2009 requiring the petitioner to show-
cause as to why the penalty be not enhanced to dismissal from
service.
16. Considering the reply filed by the petitioner the Revisional
Authority, vide order dated 28.4.2009, inflicted the penalty of
compulsory retirement.
17. Suffice would it be to state that the petitioner was
provoked into having a heated dialogue with his superior officer on
account of a genuine request for 1 day's casual leave being declined.
18. It was not a war situation. Petitioner was not required for
any emergency duty. He was directed to proceed to Srinagar in
routine. His brother's engagement ceremony had to be performed.
Only 1 day's casual leave was sought for.
19. For the misdemeanour of arguing with the senior officer
and in anger snatching back the application for leave submitted by
him, we are of the opinion that the penalty levied by the
Commandant was an adequate penalty and there are no reasons to
enhance the same, more so when the penalty order dated 20.3.2004
was given effect to and by the year 2007, the penalty stood
completed.
20. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition quashing the
order dated 28.4.2009 passed by the Revisional Authority and restore
the penalty order dated 20.3.2004.
21. We direct the petitioner to be reinstated within 6 weeks.
22. Petitioner would be paid back-wages post 28.4.2009 till
WP(C) 520/2011 Page 4 of 5
he is reinstated. Petitioner would be entitled to all consequential
benefits.
23. Arrears would be paid to the petitioner within the said
period of 6 weeks.
24. No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
APRIL 25, 2011
dk
