Delhi High Court
Anirudh Rai vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 February, 2016
Author: Hima Kohli
$~2.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 102/2016
ANIRUDH RAI ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Kunwar Singh Ali, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Amrita Prakash, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 09.02.2016
1. The present of petition has been filed by the petitioner against the
respondent/CRPF praying inter alia for issuing a writ of mandamus
directing the respondents to convert the punishment of stoppage of
future one increment with "cumulative effects" into stoppage of future
one increment "without cumulative effect" inflicted on him, vide Office
Order dated 9.10.2009, issued by the respondent No.3/DIG, CRPF,
Agartala, Tripura.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had
joined CRPF as an ASI (M) on 13.11.1992 and he is presently holding
the post of a Sub Inspector (M) and is posted at GC, CRPF, New Delhi.
When the petitioner was posted at Agartala, Tripura period between
19.8.2007 to 16.9.2010, he had claimed that he was suffering from
Migraine and gone into depression and resultantly he remained absent
for 530 days without taking leave. As a result, a departmental enquiry
was initiated against the petitioner and vide report dated 24.9.2009, the
Inquiry Officer had stated that the petitioner had proven his absence on
medical grounds which was found to be correct in the light of the
evidence produced by him. Dissatisfied with the report of the Inquiry
Officer, respondent No.3 had conducted further inquiry and passed an
order dated 9.10.2009 inflicting a punishment of stoppage of future one
increment with cumulative effect against the petitioner, while
regularizing the period of 530 days of absence on medical grounds.
3. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2009, the petitioner had
preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2/Inspector General of
Police, CRPF, which was rejected vide order dated 19.1.2010. After his
review petition came to be dismissed, the petitioner had filed a mercy
appeal before the respondent No.4, which was turned down vide order
dated 12.9.2014. Aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection orders, the
petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia that the
punishment of stoppage of future one increment "with cumulative
effect" inflicted on him may be converted into stoppage of future one
increment "without cumulative effect".
4. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
respondent No.3 is well empowered to impose a punishment on the
petitioner in accordance with the statute and the rules. The only ground
taken by the petitioner in the present petition to assail the order dated
09.10.2009 is that the absenting period of 530 days having been
regularized by the respondents, the petitioner ought to have been
inflicted a lesser punishment.
5. While exercising powers of judicial review, the Court is not
expected to substitute its opinion with that of the disciplinary authority
insofar as the nature of punishment inflicted is concerned as long as the
said punishment is within the parameters prescribed in the statute, not
so excessive and disproportionate with the offence. Having regard to the
fact that at the time of imposing the punishment, the respondents
herein have taken a lenient view in respect of the petitioner owing to
the long period of service rendered by him and further, they have taken
into consideration the seriousness of his family problems, we are not
inclined to interfere in the punishment of stoppage of future one
increment "with cumulative effect" as imposed on the petitioner while
regularizing his absenting period of 530 days. Accordingly, the present
petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
FEBRUARY 09, 2016
sk/rkb/ap
