Delhi High Court
Pushkar Kapoor vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution ... on 10 January, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: January 10, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 240/2018
PUSHKAR KAPOOR ..... Petitioner
Through: In person with Mr. Dinesh Prashar,
Advocate
Versus
TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LIMITED ...Respondent
Through: Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Advocate for
Mr. Sujit Kumar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGEMENT
(ORAL)
1. Petitioner claims to be a Junior Officer with respondent for last
about one decade, and was departmentally proceeded against after being
charge-sheeted on 22nd November, 2016 for exhibiting unwillingness to
work in the transferred group. The Inquiry Officer vide Inquiry Report of
6th June, 2017 held that the charges framed against petitioner stood
proved. The Disciplinary Authority vide order of 4 th July, 2017
(Annexure-G) concurred with the Report of the Inquiry Officer and
inflicted the penalty of "removal from service" upon petitioner.
2. In the statutory appeal filed by petitioner, it was averred that the
penalty inflicted is disproportionate to the charges framed and that period
of two months only has been considered to arbitrarily arrive at a
conclusion that petitioner was unwilling to work. It is asserted in the
appeal that petitioner has meritorious service of ten years and there were
two persons, including petitioner, responsible for round-the-clock duty,
whereas after petitioner's removal from service, three persons were
deputed and although petitioner had worked under the supervision and
control of more than seven officers, only one officer-Praveen Singh Saini
had reported against him and the evidence of defence witness-S.
Hariharan, Manager (HR) has not been considered by the Inquiry
Officer. The stand taken by petitioner in the appeal is that despite
tendering unconditional apology to the charges framed, penalty of
"removal from service" has been inflicted upon him, which is unjustified,
as petitioner was recommended for Shabash Award by Commercial
Manager D-PPR. Appellate Authority vide order of 13th October, 2017
(Annexure-I) has dismissed petitioner's appeal on finding no merit in it.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner assails the impugned orders of
Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority, on the ground that
the charges framed against petitioner do not stand proved. To submit so,
attention of this Court is drawn to deposition of Sh. Rajender Singh (PW-
3) and Sh. Praveen Singh Saini (PW-4) to point out that none of the
witnesses, who have deposed against petitioner, has stated about the
leaves taken by petitioner and no 'Advisory Memo' was given to
petitioner prior to taking such a harsh step of inflicting punishment of
"removal from service". It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that duty
hours were up to 06:00 p.m. but on oral instructions, petitioner was made
to work upto 08:00 p.m. for an indefinite period and that the punishment
of "removal from service" is unduly harsh and so, it is submitted that
impugned order of Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority
ought to be set aside and petitioner be reinstated in service.
4. Supreme Court in Central Industrial Security Force v. Abrar Ali,
(2017) 4 SCC 507 has re-emphasized that the Courts are reluctant in
interfering with disciplinary matters in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and are not expected to act like an
Appellate Authority and dwell upon the merits of the case. The pertinent
observations of Supreme Court in Abrar Ali (supra), are as under: -
"7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act
as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the
domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another
view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry
has been fairly and properly held and the findings are
based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the
evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be
grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental
enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings
of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where
such findings are based on no evidence or where they are
clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see
whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at
such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The
courts will however interfere with the findings in
disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or
statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is
found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on
extraneous considerations."
5. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned orders, material on
record and the legal position, as noted hereinabove, I find that though the
Court is not expected to go into the merits of the case, but I have perused
the evidence of relevant witnesses i.e. PW-3, PW-4 and DW-1 and
thereupon, has come to conclusion that the Inquiry Report of 6 th June,
2017 cannot be said to be suffering from any arbitrariness or perversity.
6. So far as the proportionality of the punishment inflicted upon
petitioner is concerned, I find that this Court cannot substitute its own
opinion with that of Disciplinary Authority. The discretion exercised by
Disciplinary Authority in inflicting the penalty appears to be in
consonance with the misconduct committed. Neither the order of
Disciplinary Authority nor of Appellate Authority is capricious nor is
vitiated by any extraneous consideration. Thus, finding no substance in
this petition, it is dismissed in limine.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 10, 2018
r/s
