[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors vs Mr Inder Prakash on 9 April, 2026
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~78
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5165/2023 & CM APPL. 20119/2023
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with
Mr. Uday Singh Ahlawat, Mrs. Tania
Ahlawat and Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh,
Advs.
versus
MR INDER PRAKASH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Puneet Rathi and Mr.
Mohd. Shahrukh Qureshi, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
% 09.04.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. These proceedings stem from a charge sheet dated 2 December
2012 issued to the respondent, whereby disciplinary proceedings
under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control &
Appeal) Rules, 1965 were initiated.
2. The charge sheet contained only Article of Charge, which reads
thus:
"ARTICLE-I
Sh. Inder Prakash who is working as Peon in Govt. Boys Sr. Sec.
School, Shahbad Mohd. Pur, Delhi is absenting from his duty
without any information w.e.f. 12-04-2011 to 31-05-2011 and
again from 23-07-2011 to till date. From his leave record, it also
came to know that before going on unauthorized leaves, he has
already availed 1230 days leaves which show that he is a habitual
absentee.
Thus by doing the said acts, the official has committed a gross
insubordination and acted in manner of unbecoming of a Govt.
servant in violation of provision of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct)
Rules, 1964. Thereby rendering him liable to action under Rule 14
of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965."
3. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, to a query from
the Court, candidly acknowledges that the leaves availed by the
respondent for the periods prior to 12 April 2011 were all duly
sanctioned and regularised. In that case, applying the law laid down
by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Dr P.L Singla1 these
periods could not have constituted a basis of the charge sheet at all.
4. As such, the charge sheet could, if at all, have survived only
with respect to leaves for the period 12 April 2011 to 31 May 2011
and 23 July 2011 to 2 December 2012.
5. The Disciplinary Authority2, in its order dated 1 June 2013,
imposed, on the respondent, the punishment of termination from
service. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the concluding
paragraphs of the impugned order which contain the operative portion
thereof, as under:
"From considering all the facts and record, it reveals that Sh.Inder
Prakash remained absent from his duty w.e.f. 12.04.2011 to
31.05.2011 and again from 23.07.2011 to 27.12.2012. For the
period from 12.04.2011 to 31.05.2011 he has submitted his
medical, while for the period from 23.07.2011 to 27.12.2012, he
has neither submitted any medical nor informed his school about
1 (2008) 8 SCC 469
2 "DA" hereinafter
his absence as per his statement in the inquiry dated:- 05.02.2013.
Sh.Inder Prakash alleged that he was not provided defence assistant
while in his statement dated:-22.11.2012, he submitted that he did
not want any defence assistant and will defend his case by himself.
Moreover, he has attended the inquiry on subsequent dates i.e.
11.01.2013, 05.02.2013 & 15.02.2013, but nowhere he had
submitted any submission in this regard. Therefore, the allegation
of not allowing defence assistant is not substantial.
From his service book it revealed that he was never regular in his
service and took more than 1200 days leaves on various occasions.
It shows that the official is a habitual absentee. It seems that the
official is not interested in his duty and has shown lack of devotion
towards his duty. By regularly absenting himself from his duty,
Sh.Inder Prakash not only hampers the functioning of school
administration but also become a liability to his school. Such act
justifies the termination of service as the official lacks interest in
his duty.
In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that Sh.Inder Prakash,
Peon is guilty of the charge leveled against him vide memorandum
dated:- 02.02.2012 and deserves for an exemplary punishment.
Now, therefore, I, Jang Bahadur Singh, Deputy Director of
Education, District South West-B being the Disciplinary Authority,
in exercise of powers conferred upon me under Rule 12 of
CCS(CCA) Rules, 1973 herby impose the penalty of "Removal
from Service" upon Sh.Inder Prakash, Peon with immediate effect
which shall not be a disqualification for his future employment
under government. The entire period of his unauthorized absence
be treated as Dies-non for all purposes."
6. A bare reading of the aforesaid paragraphs reveals that the DA
has prima facie accepted the explanation tendered by the respondent
regarding his absence for the period 12 April 2011 to 31 May 2011,
attributable to medical grounds. The DA appears to have been passed
the punishment order basically on the ground that the respondent had
availed 1200 days of leaves earlier. We have already noted that this
leave having been regularly sanctioned and therefore regularized, and
could not have been taken into account.
7. As such, the ground on which the DA has proceeded is
unsustainable in law.
8. The DA would, therefore, have to take into consideration the
respondent's explanation for the period of leave from 23 July 2011 to
2 December 2012 and, thereafter, decide on the quantum of
punishment if at all which the respondent would be required to be
visited by for the said purpose.
9. The impugned judgment of the Central Administrative
Tribunal3 has set aside the punishment awarded to the respondent as
disproportionate and has remanded the matter to the DA for
reconsideration as to awarding of any lesser punishment.
10. While we do not deem it necessary to interfere with the said
direction, we clarify that the de novo proceedings would be limited to
the allegation of absence for the period 23 July 2011 to 2 December
2012. Before taking a decision thereon, the respondent would be
entitled to submit a supplementary statement of defence for the said
period and also entitled to an opportunity of personal hearing on a date
to be communicated to Mr. Puneet Rathi, learned Counsel for the
respondent by the DA. We direct the DA to take a decision within a
period of six weeks.
11. We do not make any observation regarding the quantum of
punishment to be awarded. However, we are sanguine that the DA
would act with fairness keeping in mind the fact that the allegation
was of unauthorised absence for the period 23 July 2011 to 2
December 2012 and keeping in mind the law laid down in that regard
by authoritative pronouncements.
12. We, however, reiterate the decision of the Tribunal that the
punishment would have to be lesser than dismissal, removal or
cessation of service.
13. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no
orders as to costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J
APRIL 9, 2026/AR
3 "Tribunal" hereinafter
