Delhi High Court
Prmod Kumar vs Union Of India & Anr. on 8 April, 2016
$~R-31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 21632/2005
PRMOD KUMAR ..... Petitioner.
Through : Mr. Mayank Goel,
Mr. L. Sailo and Mr. K. Kerren, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .... Respondents
Through : Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 08.04.2016
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order
dated 20.1.2000 passed by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF dismissing
him from service on the ground of beating Head Constable/Mech. Joginder
Singh and Sub Inspector/Mech. Kamal Singh under the influence of liquor
and using unbecoming words in respect of Shri K.K. Sharma, Assistant
Commandant, Inspector S.S. Rana and Head Constable/Driver Pramod
Kumar and finally, for disturbing the peace of the barrack, amounting to
gross indiscipline and misconduct. The petitioner has also assailed the
order dated 27.4.2000 passed by the Appellate Authority upholding the
order dated 20.1.2000 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order
dated 28.2.2001 passed by the Revisional Authority, dismissing his revision
petition.
2. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does
not propose to challenge the impugned orders on merits and seeks to confine
the relief in the present petition only to the proportionality of the punishment
inflicted upon him, i.e., dismissal from service. He contends that while
passing the dismissal order, the respondents did not take into consideration
the petitioner's past conduct while in service for a period of 12 years and nor
have the certificates, cash award certificates, etc., that were awarded to him
given any weightage. He submits that by now, the petitioner is over 50
years of age and remains jobless and if the respondents reconsider the
proportionality of the punishment inflicted on him and convert the same
from dismissal to removal, there would be a likelihood of his being able to
secure a job as a security personnel in some public sector undertaking or in
the private sector.
3. Counsel for the respondents states that if the petitioner submits a
representation to the respondents on the aspect of dis-proportionality of the
punishment inflicted on him and refers to all the material factors which, as
per him, have been overlooked at the time of passing of the dismissal order,
the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.
4. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with liberty granted to
the petitioner to file a representation limited to the aspect of the
proportionality of the punishment inflicted on him, within a period of two
weeks from today. The said representation shall furnish all the details of the
past service rendered by the petitioner and the awards/certificates that had
been bestowed on him during his service. The said representation shall be
considered by the respondents in accordance with law and decided within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt thereof, under written
intimation to the petitioner.
5. Needless to state that if the grievance of the petitioner still survives,
he shall be entitled to seek his remedies as per law.
6. The writ petition is disposed of.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
APRIL 08, 2016
sk/rkb
