Delhi High Court
Ashok Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India & Others on 7 February, 2011
Author: Dipak Misra,Chief Justice
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 763/2011 & CM No.1617/2011
Ashok Kumar Sharma ....Petitioner
Through Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, Adv,
VERSUS
Union of India & Others .....Respondents
Through Mr.Mukesh Anand with
Mr.R.C.S.Bhadoria,
Mr. Shailesh Tiwari,
Mr.Jayendra Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 7.02.2011
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
The petitioner by this writ petition filed on or about 16th August,
2010 has impugned and assailed the order dated 9th July, 2009 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal affirming the order passed by
the respondent-authority imposing punishment of reduction of pay by
four stages for a period of four years with effect from 1st December,
2006. There is hardly any explanation or reason given for the delay
between 9th July, 2009 when the impugned order was passed by the
Central Administration Tribunal and 16th August, 2010 when the writ
petition was filed after a gap of more than one year. The writ petition
was returned under office objection and the petitioner has taken about
4-5 months to remove the objections.
2. Apart from the delay, on merits also we do not see any reason to
interfere. The allegations against the petitioner, as reproduced in
paragraph 10 of the judgment of the tribunal, are as under:-
"From a perusal of the original records, we find that the
charge against the applicant (as contained in Annexure-
A of the chargememo No.11/10/11-Confid./94/246-48
dated 9.3.1994) was that he had made a false complaint
in the name of Sanjay Tiwari against Shri J.R.Khatri,
Supdt. And that this amounted to conduct unbecoming
of a Government servant and was in violation of Rule
3(1)(iii) of the CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964. It is also seen
from Annexure-II and Annexure-III attached with the
above memo dated 9.3.1994 that one of the documents
on the basis of which the charge against the applicant
was proposed to be proved was the letter dated
07.11.1990 written by Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma,
Sepoy.
Although the applicant denied the charge, as averred by
the respondents, he did not deny in clear and
categorical terms writing the leave application dated
7.11.1990. The following extract of the report dated
30.05.2001 of the Inquiry Officer is pertinent in this
connection:-
Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma during the course of
his earlier examination admitted the writings
on his leave application that of his own. In the
proceedings before me he denied the writings
on his leave application but admitted the
signature thereon was his own signature."
3. The petitioner was awarded punishment of reduction of pay by
four stages for a period of six years with effect from 1st December, 2006
by the disciplinary authority. On appeal, the appellant authority
modified the punishment from six years to four years vide order dated
12th January, 2007.
4. Learned Tribunal has refused to interfere with the findings
recorded in the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment awarded.
We find that the issue and grounds raised before the Tribunal were
purely factual and this aspect has been dealt with by the Tribunal in
paragraphs 11 to 13 of the impugned order dated 9th July, 2009.
Thereafter the Tribunal has observed that there was no justification and
cause to interfere with the factual matrix having regard to the findings
given by the disciplinary authorities, while exercising power of judicial
review. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the said order which
requires interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
present writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
February 07, 2011
Bisht/VKR
