Deepak Grewal vs Uoi & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 4385 Del

$~17
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                              Date of Decision: September 24, 2013
+                              W.P.(C) 6083/2013
      DEEPAK GREWAL                                    ..... Petitioner
              Represented by:         Mr.Apurb Lal, Advocate with
                                      Mr.Dalip Singh, Advocate

                                      versus

      UOI & ORS.                                        ..... Respondents
                Represented by:       Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate with
                                      Mr.Vardhman Kaushik and Mr.Neeraj
                                      Khapra, Advocates

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

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

CM No.13378/2013 Allowed subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 6083/2013

1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal that the facts of the instant case evidence contrivance by the petitioner to somehow or the other not report for duty so that he could prepare for the Central Civil Services Examination.

2. Working as a Senior Engineer (Electrical) with the Indian Railways, the petitioner wanted long leave to prepare for the Central Civil Services Examination, which was refused to him as also to others, due to exigencies

of service because of pending work which would have suffered disruption if long leave was granted.

3. Obtaining 14 days' leave from September 04, 2003 till September 17, 2003 the petitioner did not join duty and inform the department that because of having slipped from the stairs in his house he was unable to move and for which petitioner forwarded a medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer Hindu Rao Hospital. Petitioner sought leave to be extended up till November 07, 2003 but joined on November 03, 2003; because leave was not sanctioned.

4. Issuing a charge sheet for a minor penalty proceedings the penalty of withholding increment for 3 years has been inflicted as per order dated April 20, 2004 against which statutory appeal was rejected.

5. The Tribunal has been influenced by the fact that on October 09, 2003 a letter was sent to the petitioner requiring him to join immediately but he did not do so. With respect to the controversy whether said letter was received by the petitioner the Tribunal has opined that being posted at the correct address a presumption would be required to be raised that petitioner received the letter.

6. It is urged before us that said finding ignores that the petitioner had obtained a certificate from the postal authorities that the letter in question was returned to the sender.

7. Petitioner concedes that the letter sent under registered post was posted at the correct address i.e. that of the petitioner.

8. Reason why the letter was returned undelivered has not been recorded in the certificate dated December 14, 2005 obtained by the petitioner from the postal authorities.

9. Now, if the petitioner's claim of being on bed rest due to fall injury resulting when petitioner slipped from the stairs in his house is correct, we fail to understand as to how come a letter sent by registered post at petitioner's house was returned unserved.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain as to why the petitioner did not get himself medically examined at the railway hospital and why did he go to a municipal hospital i.e. Hindu Rao Hospital.

11. It has to be kept in mind that the petitioner was wanting a long leave to prepare for the Central Civil Services Examination, which leave was denied to him.

12. The enwombing circumstances justify an inference that the petitioner contrived a sickness so that he could sit in his house and prepare for the Central Civil Services Examination. He ignored the call of the duty.

13. It is settled law that if the view taken by the authorities is reasonably probable on admitted facts and surrounding circumstances the same would not be interdicted in a judicial review. The standard of judicial review is neither strict scrutiny nor is it to be dialogic.

14. As regards the argument that the penalty should be waived, treating the misdemeanour as an act of indiscretion, propelled by the desire to do better in life, we only have to say that probably India is the only country where such kind of behaviour is sought to be justified. Those who get public employment and enter Government service expect that the Government would pamper them more than what a son-in-law would expect to be pampered, in Indian ethos, in the house of his in-laws. When this expectation converts the son-in-law into an out-law, the long arms of the law must catch up to him. Similarly would be the position with a Government

servant who plays truant.

15. A punishment has a two-fold object. To penalize the sinner for the wrong done. To set an example to others.

16. The high position which the petitioner held required him to justify the public faith and trust imposed upon him which he could have discharged only if he worked. If he contrived to shirk work, commensurate penalty keeping in view the office held by him was justifiably levied.

17. We dismiss the writ petition in limine but without any orders as to costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(V. KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 mamta