Rajesh Kumar vs Secretary, Ministry Of Home, ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 517 Del

$~3

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) 434/2016


                                                     Decided on : 22.1.2016

IN THE MATTER OF:
RAJESH KUMAR                                            ..... Petitioner
                          Through : Mr. Victor Dhissa, Advocate

                          versus

SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME, GOVT. OF INDIA & ORS
                                                 ..... Respondents
                    Through : Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate


CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying

inter alia for setting aside the order dated 18.5.2015 passed by the

respondent No.3/Inspector General (Admn.), Force Head Quarter,

Sashastra Seema Bal, New Delhi (Appellate Authority), upholding the

order dated 28.2.2015, passed by the Commanding Officer

(Disciplinary Authority), imposing upon him a punishment of

"reduction to lower rank of CT/GD" for a period of three years.

2. At the relevant point in time, prior to issuance of the

Memorandum dated 28.8.2014, when the petitioner was working on

the post of a Head Constable in the 25th Battalion of the SSB, he was

called upon to explain his conduct in view of the allegations levelled

against him to the effect that on 8.7.2014, he had been ordered to

move for the rehearsal of DG Guard of Honour on 9.7.2014, but he

reached the headquarters on 8.7.2014 at 21.15 hrs., without

informing anyone and without obtaining the approval of the Company

Commander; it was noticed that the petitioner had not handed over

the charge to the next Guard Commander and had failed to sign on

the register maintained by the Guard Commander; the petitioner was

also informed that on 26.8.2014, when he was guarding the main

gate, the duty hours were from 9.00 AM to 1.00 PM, but he had failed

to attend the general falling in at 3.00 PM; further, on remaining

absent, the petitioner had failed to give his joining report in the office.

3. Vide letter dated 1.9.2014, the petitioner submitted his reply to

the aforesaid Memorandum. Not satisfied with the said reply, a

Summary Force Court under Section 82 of SSB Act, 2007 (in short

'the Act') was held at the 25th Bn., SSB, New Delhi on 27.2.2015 and

three charges were levelled against the petitioner under Sections

21(d), 22(b) & (c) and 23(1) of the Act, which refer to the following

offences :

i). Failing to appear at the time fixed at the parade or place appointed for exercise or duty without sufficient cause;

ii). Using insubordinate language to a superior officer; and

iii). Disobedience to a superior officer.

4. In the course of appearing before the Summary Force Court, the

petitioner pleaded "guilty" in response to charges No.1 and 2 and "not

guilty" in response to charge No.3. After recording the proceedings in

respect of the plea of not guilty taken by the petitioner with respect to

charge No.3 and on going through the records of the said proceedings,

the petitioner was found guilty in respect of charge No.3 and a

punishment of "reduction to lower rank of CT/GD" for a period of three

years under Section 51 (F) of the Act was awarded to him with

immediate effect.

5. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.2.2015, passed by the

Disciplinary Authority (Commanding Officer), the petitioner had filed a

writ petition in the High Court, registered as WP(C)No.8038/2015,

which was subsequently withdrawn by him. Though the order dated

25.8.2015 does not indicate so, counsel for the petitioner states that

he had withdrawn the said petition with liberty to file an appeal before

the Appellate Authority against the order passed by the Disciplinary

Authority.

6. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed an appeal against the

order dated 28.2.2015 (pages 26 to 29) and vide Order dated

18.5.2015, the Inspector General (Admn.), the Appellate Authority

had expressed an opinion that there was no reason to differ with the

decision taken by the Commandant, the Disciplinary Authority and

accordingly, the petitioner's appeal was rejected.

7. Counsel for the petitioner states that during the Summary Force

Court held by the respondents, the petitioner was given an assurance

that if he would plead guilty in respect of the charges levelled against

him, he would not face any adverse consequences and the

respondents would take a lenient approach and it was only in this

background that the petitioner had pleaded guilty. He further states

that the petitioner has rendered eighteen years of blemishless service

which aspect ought to have been taken into consideration by the

respondents while imposing any punishment on him.

8. No other challenge has been laid by the petitioner to the

impugned order dated 28.2.2015 passed by the Disciplinary Authority

that stands merged in the order dated 18.5.2015, passed by the

Appellate Authority.

9. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the petitioner in the light of the averments made in the petition. A

perusal of the order dated 28.2.2015 passed by the Disciplinary

Authority reveals that the petitioner had selectively pleaded guilty in

respect of the three charges levelled against him. While he had

pleaded "guilty" in respect of charges No.1 and 2, he had elected to

plead "not guilty" in respect of charge No.3, which shows that contrary

to the stand taken in the present petition, the petitioner was not under

any pressure or coercion during the Summary Force Court proceedings

and he had duly considered each of the charges levelled against him

and responded as per his own choice. Had it been a case of

pressure/coercion having been imposed on the petitioner, as alleged,

there was no good reason for him to have pleaded "not guilty" in

respect of charge No.3 and contest the said charge.

10. It is further relevant to note that the punishment prescribed for

the offence committed under Section 21(d) of the Act is imprisonment

for a term that may extend to three years; similarly, the punishment

prescribed for an offence under Section 22(b) & (c) of the Act is

imprisonment for a term that may extend upto fourteen years and

under Section 21(1) of the Act, the punishment may extend for a term

upto fourteen years. Despite the same, the respondents have shown

leniency towards the petitioner and awarded a lesser punishment to

him of reduction to a lower rank of Constable (GD) for a period of

three years.

11. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that

the petitioner was coerced into pleading guilty is unfounded and the

punishment imposed on him appears to be commensurate to the

offence and far less than the maximum punishment envisaged under

the relevant provisions of the statute. The argument advanced by

learned counsel for the petitioner that his client had rendered

blemishless service for eighteen years earlier to the date of the

incident, cannot be a ground to completely overlook his misconduct

and even otherwise, it appears from the punishment imposed on the

petitioner that this aspect was factored in by the respondents while

deciding his case.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not

inclined to interfere in the impugned order as it does not suffer from

any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity.

13. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as being devoid of

merits.

(HIMA KOHLI) JUDGE

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 22, 2016 sk/ap