Delhi High Court
Lal Chand vs The Directorategeneral Of Crpf on 12 January, 2018
$~SB-1
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
REVIEW PET. No.89/2016 in
+ W.P.(C)No.259/2012
% Date of decision : 12th January, 2018
LAL CHAND ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. O.N. Sharma, Adv.
versus
THE DIRECTORATEGENERAL OF CRPF .... Respondent
Through: Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with
Mr. Harsh Ahuja and Mr.
Kushal Kumar, Advs. along
with Mr. Rajender H/C CRPF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
REVIEW PET. No.89/2016
1. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties on this review petition
seeking review of our order dated 3rd April, 2013 whereby we had
dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner assailing the order dated
11th September, 2008 passed by the appellate tribunal purporting to be
in furtherance of the prior order dated 10th January, 2008 modifying
the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on him.
2. Given the nature of the review petition, it is not necessary to
deal with the detailed factual narration, as set out by us in the order
dated 3rd April, 2013. Suffice it to say that on identical allegations, the
review petitioner Lal Chand was tried with his colleague Head
Constable/Driver Satish Kumar inter alia for having embezzled 99
litres of diesel. The disciplinary proceedings resulted in the
petitioner's conviction for the same and an order of removal from
service and recovery of the fuel prices jointly from the two
delinquents. The order of conviction was confirmed by the order
dated 10th January, 2008 passed by the appellate authority who had
interfered with the substantive sentence of removal from service.
Instead of this punishment, the appellate authority ordered that the two
delinquents be reverted to the post of Constable from the post of Head
Constable and that this reversion shall be limited for a period of three
years from the date of reinstatement.
3. The challenge by the review petitioner and Satish Kumar before
IGP, CRPF, Delhi was rejected by an order dated 9th July, 2008.
4. After all these orders, the office of the disciplinary authority
(DIGP) issued the order dated 11th September, 2008 purporting to be
in continuation of the order dated 10th of January 2008 directing that
the pay of the petitioner as well as Satish Kumar would stand reduced
by three stages from Rs.4,050/- to Rs.3,795/- for a period of three
years from the date of their reporting subsequent to their
reinstatement. In addition, it was ordered that the persons will not
earn any increments during the said period and on completion of the
period of reversion, the punishment of reversion shall have cumulative
effect in future.
5. Aggrieved by this order, the review petitioner had filed the writ
petition which was rejected by our order dated 3rd April, 2013. It is
also pointed out that a special leave petition was also filed before the
Supreme Court assailing our order dated 3rd April, 2013 which was
rejected in limine.
6. What was not known to the petitioner was the fact that Satish
Kumar had assailed the said orders by way of writ petition being
W.P.(C)No.3110/2009, Sri Satish Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
before the Gauhati High Court. This writ petition came to be allowed
by an order dated 23rd of January 2012 whereby the ld. Single Judge of
the Gauhati High Court ordered as follows :
"13. Coming to the impugned order dated 11.09.2008, I am
of the view that this order has virtually superseded the
appellate authority's order. As mentioned earlier, while
interfering with the order of removal from service, the
appellate authority ordered that both the delinquents should
be reverted back to the post of constable/driver for a period
of 3 (three) years from the date of their reinstatement.
However, in the order dated 11.09.2008, the DIG of Police
(CRPF) has ordered that even after completion of 3 (three)
years' reduction in rank the petitioner shall not be entitled to
increments thereafter. Since this order is against the
appellate and revisional authorities' final order, the last part
of the order dated 11.09.2008, is hereby set aside. It is held
that the petitioner will be entitled to increments on his
reinstatement as Head Constable."
(Emphasis by us)
7. Upon coming to know of this judgment, the present review
petition has been filed requesting this court to review the order dated
3rd April, 2013 whereby we had dismissed the writ petition of the
petitioner. The review is sought primarily on the petitioner's
contention that, given the identical facts and law which arose for
consideration, the petitioner is entitled to parity of treatment and
deserves to be placed in the same position as Satish Kumar.
8. Ld. counsel for the respondent does not dispute the proceedings
before the Gauhati High Court; the order dated 23rd January, 2012
passed by the Gauhati High Court or the fact that the petitioner is
placed identically as Satish Kumar.
9. In this background, we find substance in the plea of the
petitioner and hold that the he would be entitled to identical treatment
as Satish Kumar, a co-accused identically placed. It is submitted on
behalf of the petitioner that so far as the judgment dated 23 rd January,
2012 is concerned, it has been accepted by the respondents; has
attained finality and Satish Kumar has been given the benefit.
10. In view of the above, we direct as follows :
(i) The order dated 3rd April, 2013 passed by us dismissing the writ
petition of the petitioner is hereby recalled.
(ii) The order dated 3rd April, 2013 is modified and it is directed
that the order dated 11th September, 2008 to the extent that it ordered
that the petitioner shall not earn increments during the period of three
years of his reversion and that the punishment of reversion shall have
effect on future annual increments, is hereby set aside and quashed.
(iii) The petitioner would be entitled to increments on his
reinstatement as Head Constable.
11. This review petition is allowed in the above terms.
Dasti.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
J.R. MIDHA, J.
JANUARY 12, 2018
aj
