Delhi High Court
Manoj Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors. on 11 January, 2021
$~Suppl.-48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 345/2021 & CM APPL.900/2021
MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Wattan Sharma, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.G.D.Sharma, Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 11th January, 2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of dismissal
dated 28th February, 2013 as well as the order dated 26th November, 2013
insofar as it relates to the petitioner. Petitioner also prays for a direction to
the respondents to reinstate him in service by restoring his seniority, and to
grant him all consequential benefits as well as reconsider the petitioner's
case sympathetically.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the punishment imposed
upon the petitioner is too harsh and calls for interference by this Court. He
states that the respondents are not considering the representations of the
petitioner on account of the judgment of this Court in Surender Negi Vs.
Union of India & Ors. in WP(C) 5683/2015, whereby this Court dismissed
similarly placed constable's petition.
4. Having perused the paper book, this Court finds that the case of the
petitioner is identical to the case decided by another Division Bench in
Surender Negi Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra). The relevant portion
of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"4. This Court has considered the submission and has also gone
through the award. Initial sanction granted to the petitioner which
led to his temporary release and participation in SAI was based
upon the assumed genuineness of the request made by SAI itself on
22.09.2011. Apparently, this practice is widespread -- no less than
240 employees -- had secured similar, if not identical letters
leading to the release by their employers i.e. SSB. In fact, however,
SAI apparently never issued that letter. The entire state of affairs
came to light due to the fact that one employee never reported to
the SAI but had virtually availed of paid leave and avoided duties in
the practice of training. When the verification of each letter issued
by the SAI was ordered, the so called irregularity, which is not a
minor infraction as is sought to be suggested -- came to light.
Whatever may be the circumstance in which the petitioner may have
been assured leniency, the fact remains that he pleaded to his guilt
when charged by the SSB. There may a grain of truth in what the
petitioner urges, namely, that the training facilities in SSB are not
adequate or upto standards. Nevertheless, that does not mean that
public employees can take it upon themselves to either
illegally/irregularly secure release by some method -- in the present
case have some official in the SAI unauthorisedly issue a letter
leading to release from his employer or worse, fabricate such letter
and at the same time say that he actually underwent the training.
The sanction to participate in the training session was premised
upon the SAI's letter of 22.09.2011. That such letter was never
issued or could not have been issued is not in dispute.
4. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that having
regard to the totality of the circumstances and particularly, that the
petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge, no interference is called for
with the penalty which has been apparently confirmed by the
appellate authority too as a whole.
5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the petition and it
is therefore dismissed."
(emphasis supplied)
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid reasoning in an identical matter, the
present writ petition is also dismissed along with pending application.
6. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be
also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
MANMOHAN, J
ASHA MENON, J
JANUARY 11, 2021
KA
