Delhi High Court
Mahipal Singh vs Uoi & Ors. on 7 January, 2013
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~R-8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : January 07, 2013
+ W.P.(C) 2507/2001
MAHIPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.V.K.Tandon, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Under instructions from the petitioner learned counsel gives up all
pleas except pertaining to the penalty levied upon the petitioner by urging
that the penalty violates Rule 8(d)(ii) of the Delhi Police Punishment and
Appeal Rules 1980.
2. Vide order dated November 22, 1999, the Disciplinary Authority has
levied the penalty upon the petitioner of reducing his pay by five stages in
the time-scale of pay for a period of five years with further direction that
during the period of reduction the petitioner will not earn increments and
further on the expiration of the said period the reduction will have the effect
of postponing petitioner's future increments of pay.
3. Rule 8(d) of the Delhi Police Punishment and Appeal Rules 1980
reads as under:-
8. Principles for inflicting penalties. -
(d) Forfeiture of approved service.-
Approved service may be forfeited permanently or
temporarily for a specified period as under:-
(i) For purposes of promotion or seniority (Permanent
only).
(ii) Entailing reduction in pay or deferment of an
increment or increments (permanently or temporarily)."
4. We need not bother ourselves to interpret sub-rule (ii) of clause-d of
Rule 8 of the Delhi Police Punishment and Appeal Rules 1980 inasmuch as
a Division Bench of this Court has interpreted the same in a judgment dated
September 17, 2002 deciding a large number of writ petitions, lead matter
being WP(C) No.2368/2000 'Shakti Singh v. UOI & Ors.'
5. The phrase 'permanently or temporarily' in sub-clause (ii) of clause-d
of Rule 8 was the subject matter of interpretation in the context of the sub-
clause being disjunctive; having the word 'or' in the clause, thereby
bisecting the clause into two parts; part one being an order entailing
reduction in pay and the second part being an order deferring an increment.
6. The Division Bench considered whether the expression 'permanently
or temporarily' qualifies both limbs of the clause or only the latter; and
concluded that it qualifies only the latter. Meaning thereby, a penalty order
entailing reduction in pay could not be given a permanent effect as per the
mandate of the sub-rule in question.
7. The result was that the Division Bench set aside such kinds of
penalties (the one we are dealing with) and remanded the matter to the
Disciplinary Authority to re-consider the penalty.
8. In other words, the Disciplinary Authority could choose to inflict the
penalty entailing reduction in pay (but not permanently) or deferment of an
increment (temporarily or permanently).
9. We do likewise. Impugned penalty order dated November 1999 as
also the appellate order dated April 10, 2000 are set aside. The impugned
order dated July 05, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal
dismissing OA No.1211/2000 is also set aside.
10. The matter is remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to re-decide the
penalty which needs to be inflicted upon the petitioner keeping into view the
law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in Shakti Singh's case
(supra).
11. Since petitioner has already suffered the penalty i.e. he was reduced in
pay for a period of five years and after five years the increments for the five
years were also withheld, we direct that keeping in view the penalty which
would now be levied if arrears become payable they would be computed and
paid to the petitioner within six weeks of the penalty being levied.
12. No costs.
13. DASTI.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(VEENA BIRBAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 07, 2013
dkb
