Delhi High Court
Pardeep Kumar Sharma vs Pr. Chief Security Commissioner, ... on 6 August, 2020
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 5022/2020
PARDEEP KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prabodha Kumar Agarwal,
Advocate.
versus
PR. CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER,
RPF & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: None.
% Date of Decision: 06th August, 2020
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
CM APPL. 18086/2020 & CM APPL. 18087/2020
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P. (C) 5022/2020 & CM APPL. 18085/2020
1. The petition has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view
of the urgency expressed therein. The same has been heard by way of video
conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the suspension order
dated 05th July, 2020 and charge-sheets dated 09th July, 2020 and 10th July,
2020 issued by respondent No.2. Petitioner also prays for a declaration that
the impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 be declared as illegal and
invalid.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the charges in both the
charge-sheets are so vague that the petitioner cannot defend himself and
there is no evidence to support the charges. He further submits that the
impugned suspension order is violative of Rule 135 of the Railway
Protection Force Rules, 1987. He also states that the impugned orders are
liable to be quashed as respondent No. 2 is alleged to be biased against the
petitioner. In support of his submission, he relies upon a judgment of the
Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. V.K. Khanna & Ors., (2001) 2 SCC
4. However, a perusal of the first charge-sheet reveals that serious
allegations of increase in unauthorized construction and encroachment as
well as illegal parking during the petitioner's tenure at Patel Nagar have
been made. Naturally, the onus would be on the department to prove the said
charge-sheet.
5. Further, the allegation in the second charge-sheet that the petitioner
had not taken any action despite the theft report having been lodged with
him, is not a vague allegation.
6. The petitioner's contention that issuance of two charge-sheets is
vitiated by malice and respondent No. 2 is biased against the petitioner is not
prima facie borne out from the record. The petitioner's submission that the
suspension order is violative of Rule 135 of the Railway Protection Force
Rules, 1987, is misconceived on facts as charge-sheets have already been
issued.
7. The judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. V.K.
Khanna & Ors. (supra) is inapplicable to the present case inasmuch as in the
said case the actions of the petitioner in handing over the investigations to
the CBI against two other officers was made the basis for issuance of
departmental charge-sheet - which is not the case in the present instance.
8. Accordingly, the present writ petition and application being bereft of
merits are dismissed. Needless to state that the findings recorded herein are
only for the purposes of deciding the present writ petition. Nothing stated in
the present order would prejudice either of the parties in the departmental
enquiry.
9. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be
also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
MANMOHAN, J
SANJEEV NARULA, J
AUGUST 06, 2020
sb
