Sanjeev Verma vs District & Session Judge And ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 1284 Del

*                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                            W.P. (C.) No.1408/2011

%                         Date of Decision: 04.03.2011

Sanjeev Verma                                           .... Petitioner
                        Through: Mr.Nagender Deswal, Advocate

                                   Versus

District & Session Judge and another               .... Respondents
                      Through: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat with Ms.Latika
                               Chaudhary, Advocates for respondent
                               No.1
                               Mr.Rajiv   Bansal,  Advocate    for
                               respondent No.2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

1.    Whether reporters of Local papers may be                      No.
      allowed to see the judgment?
2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?                        No.
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in                    No.
      the Digest?


A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL)

*

1. The petitioner herein was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (Ahlmad)

by the Court of District & Session Judge, Delhi. At the relevant time, in

March 2004, the petitioner was posted as Ahlmad in the Court of

Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Parliament Street, New Delhi. On 15 th

March, 2004, a raid was conducted and one person, namely, Shri Sunil

Verma, was found in the room of the Ahlmad of the Court of Special

Metropolitan Magistrate, Parliament Street, New Delhi, who was

allegedly personating himself as the Ahlmad of the Court. The

petitioner was suspended immediately vide orders dated 16 th March,

2004. The charges framed against the petitioner inter alia stipulated

that while working in the Court of Shri S.C. Sareen, Special

Metropolitan Magistrate, Parliament Street, New Delhi, the petitioner

had engaged another private person, namely, Shri Sunil Verma, to

work on the seat of Ahlmad unauthorisdely in his place. We may note

here that the raid was conducted by a team consisting of Shri R.K.

Ahluwalia, Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court and Shri D.K. Batra, Joint

Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court along with Sub Inspector, Shri

Rakesh Yadav, and other police officials of the Parliament Street Police

Station, who had gone for surveillance and had found Shri Sunil Verma

working on the seat of the petitioner and handling traffic challans

unauthorisedly in place of the petitioner. On this charge, inquiry was

conducted. During the enquiry, it also transpired that Shri Sunil Verma

was engaged by the petitioner. An FIR bearing No.63/2004 under

Section 170, 120B of the Indian Penal Code was also registered against

the petitioner at the Police Station Parliament Street. The petitioner

was arrested in the said criminal case and remained in judicial custody

for a period of 28 days before he was granted bail.

2. Thereafter the District & Sessions Judge as Disciplinary Authority

decided to initiate departmental inquiry against the petitioner for

which memo of chargesheet dated 22nd March, 2005 was served upon

the petitioner. Inquiry was conducted into the aforesaid charges

wherein six witnesses were examined by the Department. The

petitioner also appeared as a witness. After the completion of the

inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 15 th September,

2008 to the Disciplinary Authority. After receiving this report, same

was forwarded to the petitioner with opportunity to make

representation, if any, against the same. The petitioner preferred his

representation dated 24.09.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner was also

granted personal hearing by the Disciplinary Authority, which led to

passing of the impugned orders dated 04.07.2009 by the District &

Sessions Judges in his capacity as the Disciplinary Authority. Vide this

order, the petitioner was inflicted with the penalty of compulsory

retirement with immediate effect. Simultaneously, it was also ordered

that the petitioner will not receive any benefits more than what he had

already received during the period of suspension.

3. The petitioner preferred an administrative appeal against this order,

which has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated

21.10.2010. Challenge to both these orders, namely, one passed by

the Disciplinary Authority and other by the Appellate Authority, present

writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the representation

made by the petitioner against the findings of the Inquiry Officer in the

inquiry report, the petitioner had categorically challenged those

findings and has also stated that the findings arrived at were not in

accordance with law inasmuch as different witnesses had given

different versions. His grievance is that the Disciplinary Authority did

not go into this aspect at all and did not discuss the representation

and, therefore, the order suffers from this infirmity and is liable to be

set aside. He further argues that even the Appellate Authority did not

consider this aspect.

5. This argument, though appears to be attractive in the first blush, loses

its sheen when the developments, which took place during the oral

hearing given by the Disciplinary Authority to the petitioner, are taken

note of. It would be material to note in this behalf that when the

petitioner appeared before the Disciplinary Authority on affording

personal hearing, the petitioner made a categorical statement that he

was not challenging the findings of the Inquiry Officer and instead

prayed for a lenient view on the ground that he remained in jail for

about 28 days in a criminal case registered against him. With this

statement, it becomes obvious that the petitioner gave up his

challenge to the findings, which were arrived at by the Inquiry Officer

holding him guilty of the charges. His only plea before the Disciplinary

Authority was that a lenient view should be taken. In fact, going by

this statement of the petitioner, the order of the Disciplinary Authority

reveals that in fact a lenient view was taken. The Disciplinary

Authority has categorically observed that the charge established

against the petitioner was very serious, which made him liable under

the criminal law as well. It inflicted on his integrity. In addition, the

petitioner had committed a serious misconduct by handing over

judicial record to an outsider. However, still going by the plea of the

petitioner to take lenient view, the Disciplinary Authority chose to

impose the penalty of compulsory retirement as mentioned above. In

the aforesaid circumstances, it is not open to the petitioner to contend

that the pleas raised by him in the representation were not given due

consideration by the Disciplinary Authority. We may record here that

this aspect was raised before the Appellate Authority as well and the

Appellate Authority stated, while rejecting the appeal of the appellant,

that when the petitioner had given up his challenge to the findings of

the Inquiry Officer and had rather prayed for a lenient view, the order

of the Disciplinary Authority did not suffer from any infirmity. We are

quite in agreement with the aforesaid view taken by the Appellate

Authority. It is also recorded by the Appellate Authority that the

petitioner had failed to disclose any bias or prejudice of the

Disciplinary Authority against the petitioner as to why such an

admission would be recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in the

impugned order.

6. Thus, we do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed

in limine.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though

the order of compulsory retirement was passed on 04.07.2009, the

terminal dues of the petitioner has not been settled so far though he

has fulfilled all the formalities. He, thus, requests that decision in this

regard be taken and admissible dues be paid in a time-bound manner.

We find this request of the petitioner to be quite reasonable. The

Disciplinary Authority shall calculate the terminal dues, which are

payable to the petitioner under different heads. It will also be

examined as to whether the petitioner is entitled to pension having

regard to the number of years of service put by the petitioner. Order

in this regard shall be passed within a period of two weeks and the

terminal dues shall be paid within four weeks thereafter.

8. Needless to mention, if the petitioner feels aggrieved against the

quantum of terminal dues offered to him, he would be at liberty to

challenge the order in accordance with law.

9. Copies of this order be given to the counsel for the parties under the

signatures of the Court Master of this Court.

A.K. SIKRI, J.

MARCH 04, 2011                                                      M.L. MEHTA, J.
Dev