Sanjeev Kumar vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 3095 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 09.05.2012

+       W.P.(C) 2744/2012

SANJEEV KUMAR                                                  ... Petitioner

                                         versus

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                                     ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner           : Mr Prag Chawla with Mr Sudeep Sudan and
                               Mr Anil Dabaas
For the Respondent           : None

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

                                   JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM 5902/2012 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CM 5901/2012 The delay in re-filing is condoned.

This application stands disposed of.

WP(C) 2744/2012

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.12.2011

passed in OA 4190/2010 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal

Bench, New Delhi, whereby the petitioner's said Original Application had

been dismissed.

2. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had sought the quashing and the

setting aside of the orders dated 24.08.2009, 02.06.2010 and 07.09.2010

being the charge, the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the

order passed by the appellate authority, respectively. The petitioner has

been awarded the penalty of forfeiture of four years of approved service

permanently, entailing proportionate reduction in the pay of the petitioner.

The suspension period was also directed to be regarded as 'period not spent

on duty' for all intents and purposes.

3. The incident which gave rise to the aforesaid orders and the aforesaid

penalty was one which took place on 19.01.2009. The petitioner was on

duty along with government crane No. DL-1LA-6856 vide DD No. 9 dated

19.01.2009. The case against the petitioner was that the crane had moved

one LGV (Light Goods Vehicle) bearing No. RJ-07GA-3803 and had

brought it opposite Celebration Banquet Hall on Ring Road. There, they

threatened the said LGV driver Sh. Sanwar Lal (PW5) and demanded a sum

of ` 500/- from him by saying that if his vehicle had been taken to the

police station, he would have to pay a fine of ` 1,500/-. The case against

the petitioner is that, after negotiation, the petitioner took a sum of ` 400/-

from the said LGV driver and thereafter released the said LGV.

4. PW4 Khushal Singh, who was a Traffic Inspector, was passing on

the other side of the road and noticed the said LGV being towed by the said

government crane No. DL-1LA-6856. He took a U-turn and, when he

intercepted the LGV and made enquiries, he was informed that the

petitioner had been given a sum of ` 400/- by the LGV driver and that on

the said transaction having taken place, the LGV was released from the

crane and the government crane left the scene. However, it has been stated

by PW5 in his statement before the enquiry officer that no money was paid

by him to the petitioner nor did the petitioner demanded any such sum.

5. The enquiry officer, however, on the basis of the other evidence on

record and particularly that of PW4 Inspector Khushal Singh, returned the

finding that a sum of ` 400/- had been demanded by the petitioner and had

been paid by the LGV driver (PW5 Sanwar Lal) for release of the said

vehicle by the said crane. The said PW5 also stated that he had, in fact,

asked the petitioner to return the sum of ` 400/- which he had taken from

the LGV driver and that the same was accordingly taken from the petitioner

by the said PW5 and returned to the LGV driver.

6. On the basis of the evidence that was placed before the enquiry

officer, he submitted a report dated 24.08.2009 in which he found that the

charges against the petitioner stood proved. The same were also confirmed

by the disciplinary authority and, as indicated above, the disciplinary

authority awarded the punishment of forfeiture of four years of approved

service permanently, entailing proportionate reduction in the pay of the

petitioner. The suspension period was also directed to be regarded as

'period not spent on duty' for all intents and purposes. The appellate

authority also concurred with the conclusions arrived at by the disciplinary

authority and it is thereafter that the petitioner approached the Tribunal by

way of the said OA which has been dismissed by the Tribunal.

7. The only thing to see in this case is as to whether there was some

evidence on the basis of which the authorities below could have come to

the conclusion that they did and could have awarded the penalty to the

petitioner. It is abundantly clear that although PW5 - the LGV driver - has

not supported the case against the petitioner, there is evidence in the form

of statement of PW4 Inspector Khushal Singh which does tend to support

the case against the petitioner. Therefore, this is clearly not a case of no

evidence. It cannot also be said that the findings returned by the enquiry

officer as also the disciplinary authority are perverse inasmuch as that the

findings are not at all based upon any material on record. In such

circumstances, the scope of interference in review, both by the Tribunal as

well as by this Court under Article 226, is very limited. When there is

some evidence to support the case against the petitioner, it would not be

open to the Tribunal or this Court to substitute its views by drawing

different inferences, on the basis of the same material, than that arrived at

by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. Consequently, this

being a case, where there is some evidence, we are not required to interfere

with the findings returned by the authorities below.

8. Insofar as the quantum of penalty is concerned, that too has to be

considered from the standpoint as to whether the penalty awarded is

unconscionable or not. We do not feel that the penalty awarded is so

disproportionate to the charge, which has been proved, that it would shock

our conscience. Consequently, insofar as the award of the penalty is

concerned also, we see no reason to interfere with the penalty awarded by

the disciplinary authority.

9. Thus, there is no merit in this writ petition. The same is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K. JAIN, J MAY 09, 2012 SR