Delhi High Court
Prakash Chandra Mishra vs Gnct Of Delhi & Ors on 20 February, 2015
Author: Kailash Gambhir
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and order: February 20, 2015.
+ W.P.(C) 1545/2015
PRAKASH CHANDRA MISHRA
..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Senior Advocate
with Ms.Tinu Bajwa, Advocate
versus
GNCT OF DELHI & ORS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
ORDER
% 20.02.2015
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (Oral)
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 17.10.2014 passed by the
learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in
O.A.No. 4464/2013.
2. At the very outset, Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate, appearing for the
respondents on advance notice raises a preliminary objection to the very
maintainability of the present petition on the ground that the petitioner is
estopped from challenging the impugned order dated 17.10.2014 as before
the learned Tribunal, the petitioner himself had prayed that at least the
Tribunal may be pleased to reduce the punishment of dismissal to that of
removal from service as dismissal would debar him from seeking
Government service in future. The learned counsel for the respondents has
invited attention of the Court to para 7 of the impugned order. The same is
reproduced hereunder:-
"Though the applicant has in his OA prayed as above,
during arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant
prayed that at least the Tribunal may reduce the
punishment of dismissal to that of removal from service as
dismissal would debar him from seeking Government
service in future. In fact, in his appeal to the Joint
Commissioner of Police dated 10.06.2013, the applicant
had made the following prayer:-
Prayer
It is prayed that your kind Hounour may be pleased
to set aside the impugned order (Annexure I) of
dismissal of the applicant from service or may be
pleased to modify the order of dismissal to removal
of service so that appellant may be eligible for
seeking Government service in future."
3. We find merit in the aforesaid objection raised by the learned counsel
for the respondents. The learned Tribunal while entertaining the aforesaid
relief claimed by the petitioner took a view that normally it would not have
interfered with the quantum of punishment but taking into consideration the
facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the punishment of
dismissal may deprive the petitioner, a young man at the threshold of his
career, of further chances of recruitment in Government service, the
punishment seems to be harsh and therefore it directed the respondents to
reduce the punishment awarded to the petitioner from dismissal to that of
removal from service.
4. Having been granted the said relief which was claimed and also
pleaded by the petitioner himself during the course of arguments before the
learned Central Administrative Tribunal, this Court is of the opinion that the
petitioner ought not to have filed the present petition to challenge the
impugned order wherein the relief granted by the learned Tribunal was as
per the relief claimed by him. Therefore, the present petition filed by the
petitioner is highly misconceived and is a gross abuse of process of the
Court. Therefore, while dismissing the present petition, this Court is
constrained to impose a cost of Rs.20, 000/- on the petitioner to be deposited
with Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks
from the date of this order. The spectre of being made liable to pay actual
costs should be such as to make every litigant be wary of putting forth a
vexatious and flippant litigation.
5. With the aforesaid directions the petition stands disposed of.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
I.S. MEHTA, J
FEBRUARY 20, 2015/pkb
