S.N.Singh vs Union Of India & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 5104 Del

$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                               Date of Decision : August 29, 2012

+                         WP(C) 5337/2012

      S.N.SINGH                                       ...Petitioner
                    Represented by: Mr.Joginder Tuli, Advocate.

                                versus

      UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                   ...Respondents
                Represented by: Mr.Himanshu Bajaj, Advocate.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH


PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

CM No.10903/2012 Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

WP(C) No.5337/2012

1. While on sanctioned leave, the petitioner was arrested on February 17, 2011 in FIR No.32/2011 PS Kalyanpur, Kanpur, U.P. for offences punishable under Sections 147/323/325/308 IPC and remained in judicial custody till February 25, 2011 when he was admitted to bail. He got the leave extended up to March 23, 2011 and joined duties on March 24, 2011 but did not inform the department that he had been arrested.

2. Information was received by the department of the petitioner being arrested and confined to the jail from February 17, 2011 to February 25, 2011 and thus a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner for the offence of not informing the

superior officers of his detention, a conduct, as per the charge which was unbecoming of a Government servant.

3. The charge had to sustain itself because admittedly the petitioner had not given the relevant information, and to this extent learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the indictment at the inquiry is correct. Learned counsel concedes that as per OM No.30/59/54-Est(A) dated February 25, 1995 a Government servant renders himself liable for disciplinary action if he does not inform the superior officers of the facts and circumstances leading to the arrest of the person concerned.

4. However, learned counsel questions the penalty of compulsory retirement levied as disproportionate to the gravity of the offence i.e. the offence of not reporting to the superior officer that he had been arrested.

5. As regards the FIR in question, it is not in dispute that the complainant happens to be a close relation of the petitioner and it appears to be a case of family feud.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had joined service on December 16, 1983 and when compulsorily retired by way of penalty on November 19, 2011 had rendered 28 years' service. The petitioner is aged 49 years and had a remainder service of 11 years when penalty was levied.

7. Past service record shows three minor aberrations in 28 years service resulting in three censures being inflicted upon the petitioner.

8. We are of the opinion that the penalty of compulsory retirement is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence i.e. not reporting his being arrested and confined to prison for 9 days pertaining to a complaint lodged against the petitioner and his family members by close relations. It is settled law that a

penalty has a two-fold purpose. To penalize the wrongdoer as also to set an example to others. The penalty must bear a proportion to the wrong committed. A penalty which results in cessation of service, be it dismissal or removal from service or compulsory retirement should ordinarily be reserved for grave misconducts and the lesser penalties of reduction in rank or reduction in the pay-scale by an appropriate number of stages or withholding increments should be levied for misconducts which are not of a grave kind.

9. The misconduct committed by the petitioner of not informing his being arrested by the police in our opinion is not a grave misconduct and thus does not warrant imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement. A lesser penalty, may be of reduction in ranks or reduction by two or three stages in the scale of pay would be a more appropriate penalty which can be levied upon the petitioner for the reason he had earned a promotion and could thus be reduced in rank or alternatively the pay could be reduced by two or three stages.

10. Leaving open the penalty which the Competent Authority may impose upon the petitioner, but not of a kind where the petitioner loses the job, we dispose of the writ petition quashing the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner and direct his reinstatement, but without any back-wages, leaving it open to the Competent Authority to levy an appropriate penalty upon the petitioner, but not of a kind where the petitioner would lose his job.

11. Petitioner be reinstated in service within two weeks and appropriate penalty may be levied by the Competent Authority keeping in view the present decision and for which

penalty, the petitioner need not be heard because counsel for the petitioner concedes to the misconduct being proved.

12. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE AUGUST 29, 2012 dk