Rajneesh Yadav vs The Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 3369 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Date of Decision: May 20, 2013

+                         W.P.(C)8050/2012

      RAJNEESH YADAV                                      ..... Petitioner
               Represented by:         Mr.Ravi Kant Jain, Advocate

                                       versus

      THE GOVT. OF NCTE OF DELHI & ORS.        ..... Respondents

Represented by: Anjum Javed, Advocate with Mr.N.A.Khan, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)

1. Limited show cause notice was issued on December 21, 2012 on the subject of proportionality of the penalty levied upon the writ petitioner, which is permanent forfeiture of 5 years' approved service entailing reduction in pay from `17,220/- per month to `14,760/- per month.

2. It is settled law that applying 'Wednesbury's' unreasonableness principle alone can an issue of proportionality in the context of penalty can be decided.

3. Such penalty which shocks a judicial conscience would attract 'Wednesbury's' unreasonableness.

4. The penalty has been levied for the reason that while working as a Sub-Inspector and posted at PS Kapashera, petitioner was entrusted with various investigations and inquiries. It was found that in as many as 18 FIRs he had not filed challans and sufficient would be for us to highlight that 6

cases pertained to offence of causing death by rash and negligent act. 27 files pertaining to FIRs were found abandoned. In 5 cases the RC of cases were lying pending. 5 inquest proceedings were pending and lying unattended. Pertaining to cases of causing death or injury by rash and negligent driving i.e. offences punishable under Section 279/304-A IPC or Section 279/337 IPC it has been established that the registration certificates of the vehicles were not sent to the courts causing inconvenience to the owners of the vehicles to take the offending vehicle on superdari.

5. Ex-facie, the penalty imposed cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate.

6. But, learned counsel for the petitioner highlights that while performing duties the petitioner had suffered an injury and due to which he was unable to devote full time to work, besides the fact that for nearly 8 months petitioner was the only Sub-Inspector at PS Kapashera.

7. In other words, a mitigating fact is sought to be projected.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that at the Departmental Enquiry, no such defence was taken and no evidence led of said fact.

9. Now, the petitioner cannot raise issues of fact pertaining to a mitigating circumstance if he had not raised the issue at the Inquiry for the reason the department may have something to say in rebuttal. There is no evidence of the petitioner suffering any injury while on duty. If he had led an evidence of an injury, the nature thereof and in what manner it hampered his work would have had to be debated. If petitioner led evidence or took a stand that he was the only Sub-Inspector at the police station, the department could have led evidence to show as to at a particular given point of time how many investigations are entrusted to its officers.

10. We find no merit in the plea that the penalty imposed is disproportionate and hence dismiss the writ petition but without any order as to costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(V.KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE MAY 20, 2013 rk