Delhi High Court
P.C.Yadav vs Uoi & Ors. on 14 August, 2012
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : August 14, 2012
+ WP(C) 4686/2012
P.C.YADAV ...Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Harvinder Oberoi, Advocate
versus
UOI & ORS. ...Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. As per the statement of imputation pertaining to
the sole charge against the petitioner, it was indicated to the
petitioner:-
"Force No.854460636 Head Constable/GD
P.C.Yadav posted in „Head Quarter‟ Coy of CISF
Unit IGI Airport, New Delhi was deputed for duty
as Guard Commander in Quarter Guard of
Mahipalpur Camp from 0600 Hrs. on dated
02.04.2010 till 0600 Hrs. on dated 03.04.2010.
During the duty, Head Constable/GD P.C.Yadav
did not carry out the practice of Quarter Guard
drill by the force personnel deployed in the
Quarter Guard. On 03.04.2010 at about 0410
Hrs., the Deputy Inspector General reached
Quarter Guard and the drill of „Guard Alert‟ being
carried out by Constable R.S.Mewari on his
instructions was found to be very inferior. The
Force member was deputed as In-charge in
Quarter Guard. The above said act of his shows
gross negligence and misconduct towards his
duty and supervision."
2. Four constables, one Head Constable (the
petitioner) and one Sub Inspector Govind Ram were stationed
for the security of the Quarter Guard at Mahipal Pur Camp of
CRPF. SI Govind Ram was the duty officer and the petitioner
was the Guard Commander.
3. As per the charge, contours whereof stand detailed
in the statement of imputation, when the DIG reached the
Quarter Guard and tested whether the officers were in a state
of readiness and the drill of „Guard Alert‟ was carried out,
Ct.R.S.Mewari, one of the four constables was found to be a
laggard. As the Guard Commander, it was alleged against the
petitioner that he was negligent in discharge of his duties i.e.
was probably not instructing the constables properly nor was
carrying out the drill with routine intervals and this explained
Ct.R.S.Mewari being a laggard.
4. However, as per the evidence led, finding a
reflection in the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, it was
Ct.Praveen Singh who was a laggard, in that, he took his own
sweet time to respond to the drill of Guard Alert and further
positioned himself at a wrong place.
5. Now, let us understand what a Guard Alert is.
6. It is a drill carried out without any prior warning.
Somebody simply shouts „Guard Savdhan‟ i.e. „Guard be alert‟.
On hearing the shout, all the Force personnel are supposed to
position themselves at the pre-designated spots told to them
and this has to be done within minutes of the shout of „Guard
be alert‟. The purpose of the drill is to keep the guards in a
state of preparedness so that if there is an emergency, the
danger can be encountered by all the guards taking position at
vantage spots identified by the superior officers to secure the
safety of the area.
7. Agreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer, vide
order dated September 10, 2010 the Disciplinary Authority
levied the penalty of reducing petitioner‟s pay by one stage for
a period of two years with further orders that during the period
of reduction the petitioner would not earn an increment of pay
and on the expiry of the two years‟ period the reduction will
have the effect of postponing future increments. In other
words, the petitioner lost two increments for all times to come.
The Appellate Authority upheld the order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority as per the appellate order dated
November 12, 2010. Some relief flowed to the petitioner when
the Revisional Authority as per order dated July 27, 2011
reduced the period of two years to one year. Thus, as per the
final order the petitioner lost one increment for all times to
come.
8. It may be true that as the Guard Commander it was
the duty of the petitioner to have carried out regular drills so
as to ensure that all the Constables were in a position to
respond to a cry of alarm, but there is no evidence that the
petitioner was not carrying out the drill in question so that
when tested for they being in a state of readiness, the four
constables could react with promptness.
9. It may also be true that Ct.Praveen Singh was the
laggard, but we admittedly have evidence that at that point of
time it was Ct.Praveen Singh‟s rest time. He was resting with
his shirt off and as per him he took time to wear his shirt and
pick up a weapon and then respond to the alert.
10. It has to be kept in mind that the date of the
incident is April 03, 2010. The place is Delhi. The time is
04:10 hours. It does get pretty hot in Delhi by early April and
this explains Ct.Praveen Singh resting with his shirt off.
11. While we appreciate strict regimented working by
Force personnel and the department requiring highest
standards of alertness from the jawans, but at the same time it
is to be expected that the minimum healthy working
conditions are provided by the department to its jawans.
12. What do we see in India at the camps of Central
Para Military Forces?
13. Shabby tents; barracks with plaster peeling off;
window panes broken; old rickety fans grinding slowly and
probably only cooling themselves and not the persons around;
stinking attached toilets with water tanks leaking. In the hot
spring and summer of Delhi, what else would you expect from
jawans when on rest, other than to remove their clothes and
rest with the underclothes on; this would be the only way
these poor jawans could beat the heat.
14. The purpose of a penalty is to punish the wrong
doer and at the same time set an example for the others. The
penalty must bear a proportion to the gravamen of the wrong.
A disproportionate penalty breeds contempt and hatred. It
may be counter productive.
15. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances
and essentially the fact that as per the statement of
imputation it was Ct.R.S.Mewari who was alleged to be a
laggard and thus the petitioner came prepared for his defence
with reference to the department attempting to prove
Ct.R.S.Mewari as the laggard, but at the game (inquiry) it
turned out that the department would be scoring a goal with
reference to the lapse of Ct.Praveen Singh and this means that
the petitioner was caught off-guard; if told that he had to
defend himself with reference to the lapse of Ct.Praveen Singh,
may be the petitioner would have had an answer on facts, we
are of the opinion that the misdemeanor by the petitioner is of
the trivialist kind and should not warrant a penalty of more
than „Censure‟.
16. The writ petition stands disposed of quashing the
impugned orders dated September 10, 2010, November 10,
2010 and July 27, 2011. Pertaining to the disciplinary action
against the petitioner we impose the penalty of „Censure‟. The
respondents would take corrective action by making an entry
in the service record of the petitioner that pertaining to the
charge in question, the penalty imposed upon him is one of
„Censure‟.
17. No costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
AUGUST 14, 2012
dk
