Delhi High Court
Surjeet Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 4 August, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 552/2016
Date of decision: 4th August, 2017
SURJEET SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ankur Chibber, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Kamal Kant Jha Sr.Panel
Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (Oral)
The petitioner, Surjeet Singh, has prayed for (I) quashing of
(a) penalty order dated 18.07.2013, punishing petitioner with
"deduction of salary equal to the salary of 3 days salary", (b) the
enhanced penalty order dated 28.02.2014, " stopping his increment
for one year which would not affect his subsequent increments", (c)
the order dated 11.06.2014 rejecting the appeal; and (d) order dated
WP(C) 552/2016 Page 1
28.01.2015 rejecting the revision and; (II) for directions to the
respondents to expunge the penalty of withholding increment for a
period of one year.
2. The petitioner does not dispute that he was responsible and
assigned duty to check and frisk passengers at booth No.9 on
01.06.2013 at Indira Gandhi International Airport between 0500
hours to 1300 hours. It is undisputed that two passengers between
0956 hours 47 seconds to 57 seconds had broken the queue and had
crossed over to the other side and had gone inside the Security
Holding Area (SHA). Another allegation found to be correct was
that the petitioner at that time was busy talking with Constable
Pintu Biswas who was posted at booth No. 8. The evidence was
captured in the CCTV footage.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that he was posted at
frisking booth No.9 and therefore, was not responsible if two
passengers had broken the queue and had crossed to SHA from
frisking booth no.7. Referring to circular No. 23/2005, it is
submitted that the Load Officer was responsible to ensure that no
unauthorized person enters SHA without undergoing checks and
WP(C) 552/2016 Page 2
screening. Load Officer was not subjected to any penalty.
4. We have considered the said contentions but do not find them
to be of substance and merit. The petitioner's accepts that the booth
No.7 was closed at that time. This booth was not manned. Booth
No. 9 is adjacent to booth Nos.7 and 8. The petitioner was talking
with constable Pintu Biswas who was on duty at booth No. 8 and
was not attentive and vigilant. Consequently, two passengers
breaking the queue and had entered the SHA area from booth no.7.
It would be rather supine and imprudent to accept the argument that
the petitioner was not at fault and should not checked unauthorized
entry to SHA from the closed booth No.7. To hold and to accept
the plea would undermine and trivialize the duty, task and
responsibility assigned to the petitioner. Given the aforesaid facts,
the findings in the impugned order condemning the petitioner, do
not require any interference.
5. Petitioner's submission that the Load Officer was not subject
to any penalty does not impress us. Negative equality cannot be
pleaded. Certainly, the petitioner should have objected and
prevented any unauthorized entry from the closed booth to SHA
WP(C) 552/2016 Page 3
area. It is not the case of the petitioner that Load Officer was
present with him at the booth.
6. Pinto Biswas posted at booth No.8 was also proceeded
against and punishment of three days fine was imposed. Pinto
Biswas had accepted the punishment and did not file any appeal.
In other words, Pinto Biswas had accepted his fault. Further, Pinto
Biswas was Constable, whereas the petitioner was Sub-Inspector.
The petitioner was senior and, therefore, had shouldered greater
responsibility. Blame and culpability on his part has been
highlighted in the impugned orders. The argument of
disproportionate punishment fails and has to be rejected.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that because
of the punishment imposed, the petitioner would be denied
promotion. Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions,
states that the petitioner would not to be denied promotion because
of the punishment order under challenge, unless he has suffered
another punishment in the last five years. The petitioner, it is stated
would be eligible for next promotion in 2020.
8. In view the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in
WP(C) 552/2016 Page 4
the present petition and is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
AUGUST 04, 2017/mr
WP(C) 552/2016 Page 5
