Delhi High Court
Manoj Kumar vs Govt. Of Nctd Through The Commissioner ... on 18 November, 2024
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9786/2019
MANOJ KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Chauhan, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCTD THROUGH THE
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC,
with Mr. Shivam Tiwari, Ms. Urmila
Sharma, Ms. Deepika Kalra and Ms. Venni
Kakkar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
ORDER (ORAL)
% 18.11.2024
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal reads thus:
"Heard Mr. Sachin Chauhan, counsel for applicant and Mr. Amit
Anand, counsel for respondents, perused the pleadings and all the
documents produced by both the parties.
2. In this OA, the applicant has prayed for the following
reliefs:
"(i) To quash and set aside order 20.4.2012 whereby a
extreme punishment of dismissal from service was imposed
upon the applicant and order dated 24.07.2012 whereby the
statutory appeal of the applicant is rejected by the Appellate
Authority and to further direct the respondent to reinstate
the applicant back in service with all consequential benefit
including seniority & promotion and pay and allowance.
(ii) To set aside the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
Or/and
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit
and proper may also be awarded to the applicant."
3. The relevant facts of the case are that a departmental
enquiry was initiated against the applicant for being wilfully and
unauthorizedly absent. He had also remained absent for 639 days
and during the said absentee period, absentee notices were issued
and earlier also he remained absent wilfully and unauthorizedly on
87 different occasions.
4. Along with the article of charge, statement of imputation of
misconduct, list of documents and list of witnesses were furnished
to the applicant. As the applicant filed his reply to the charge
memo., an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer
conducted the departmental enquiry and examining PW 1 to PW 4
as per the procedural rules and also after providing adequate
opportunity to the applicant in view of the principles of natural
justice. The applicant filed his defence statement which was also
taken into account by the inquiry officer. After discussing the
entire evidence and the defence raised by the applicant, the inquiry
officer concluded that the charge level against the applicant was
stood proved. Inquiry report was furnished to the applicant and
applicant filed his representation against the inquiry report. The
disciplinary authority after considering the entire evidence on
record, the findings of the inquiry report and the representation
against the same, and also giving an opportunity to the applicant to
appear in person on 24.02.12 and 02.03.12 in the orderly room,
imposed a penalty of dismissal on the applicant with immediate
effect vide order dated 20.04.2012. The appeal filed by the
applicant was considered by the appellate authority and by detailed
order rejected the appeal vide order dated 24.07.2012.
5. The counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that the
applicant had 21 years of un-blemished qualifying service before
the departmental enquiry was started for unauthorised absence and
that in view of the said fact the imposition of penalty of dismissal
is grossly disproportionate. The counsel for the respondents
submitted that the applicant is habitual in being absent and his
unauthorised absence was wilful as well and the respondents police
force require utmost discipline as such the imposition of penalty is
not disproportionate. The counsel for the applicant has relied upon
a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 13.08.2015 in
the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. The Commissioner of Police & Ors1
in support of his case. But however, the judgment of the Hon'ble
High Court is based on the facts in that particular case.
W P (C) 1354/2015
6. But, however, it is well settled that the penalty imposed by
the statutory authorities cannot be rightly interfered with by the
Tribunal unless the penalty imposed is grossly disproportionate.
7. In view of the facts of the case narrated above and in view
of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and in view of the
fact that the counsel for the applicant has not brought to our notice
violation of any procedural rules or principles of natural justice, the
OA is devoid of merit.
8. Accordingly, OA is dismissed. No order as to costs."
2. The order is completely unreasoned. It cannot sustain in law.
3. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and
the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for decision afresh.
4. In order to expedite matters, both parties are directed to appear
before the Tribunal on 5 December 2024.
5. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
NOVEMBER 18, 2024/dsn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
