Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: April 24, 2014
KULDEEP KUMAR ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.H.S.Dahiya, Advocate
Mr.Mudit Gupta and Mr.Soayib Qureshi, Advocates.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner was employed as a Water Carrier at Central Industrial Security Force on February 05, 1988.
2. From the facts which we would be noting hereinafter it is apparent that in the night of January 21, 2000 the petitioner consumed a few extra pegs of alcohol and went into a state of delirium. At 22:15 hrs i.e. at a quarter past 10.00 in the night he created a scene at the PCO in the unit area. SI S.K.Singh responded to the verbal nuisance created by the petitioner and tried to calm him. So heavily intoxicated was the petitioner that he could not report for duty at the mess at 07:00 hrs the next day i.e. January 22,
2000. He was found on the road in a state of intoxication. As usual in India, on lookers gathered around to enjoy the abuses hurled by the petitioner.
3. On January 28, 2000, a charge memo was served upon the petitioner 2014:DHC:2142-DB listing four articles of charge against him.
4. The first article of charge was that at 20:15 hrs on January 21, 2000 he created a nuisance under intoxication at the PCO and when directed by SI S.K.Singh to proceed to the unit lines he gave beating to SI S.K.Singh. The second charge was of being absent from duty on January 22, 2000. The third article of charge was that at 08:00 hrs on January 22, 2000 under influence of alcohol the petitioner was found abusing in front of employees quarter. The fourth article of charge was drawing attention of the petitioner that in the past he was inflicted with eight punishments as under:-
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl.No. Offence Order Punishment │ ├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1. Theft of `1000 from another 21.02.1989 Censure │ │ officer │ │ 2. Deserted CISF unit, without 19.10.1996 Fine equal to 7 │ │ permission for 21 days days pay │ │ 3. Absent from duty and arguing 30.04.1998 Fine equal to 5 │ │ with officer, under the influence days pay │ │ of alcohol │ │ 4. Deserted the unit area for 2 28.09.1998 Fine equal to 3 │ │ days, without permission days pay │ │ 5. Left the mess without 23.03.1999 Stoppage of │ │ permission and thereafter next increment │ │ manhandled with a private for 1 year │ │ doctor │ │ 6. Absent from unit lines for 6 06.09.1999 7 days HPL │ │ days, without permission without leave │ │ salary │ │ 7. Absent from duty for 8 days, 06.10.1999 Stoppage of │ │ without permission next increment │ │ for 1 year + 8 │ │ days HPL │ │ without leave │ │ salary │ │ 8. Deserted from unit lines for 15 30.11.1999 Fine equal to 7 │ │ days days pay. │ │ W.P.(C) 14163/2004 Page 2 of 5 │ │ 2014:DHC:2142-DB │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
9. Learned counsel for the respondent states that it may be a case where the gravest element of the charge i.e. assaulting SI S.K.Singh has not been proved and the authorities having treated the same to be wrongly proved could vitiate the extreme penalty of removal from service, but not if one keeps into account the past service record of the petitioner which shows that in the past eight minor penalties were inflicted upon the petitioner and in spite thereof he continued to create a nuisance of himself and for the department.
10. With respect to the eight penalties levied, we find that sometimes using the word desertion, sometimes the word absenting and sometimes the word left without permission, seven out of eight indictment pertain to the charge of being absent without permission and on one occasion, arguing with an officer under influence of alcohol, on one occasion having a skirmish with a private doctor. One indictment is of stealing `1000/- from another officer.
11. It is trite that penalty serves a twin purpose. It punishes the wrong doer. It acts as an example to others not to commit the same wrong. A penalty which is disproportionate creates a feeling of unrest. That apart, a penalty which is disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong would be arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
12. Even if we consider the past penalties levied upon the petitioner, all of were minor in nature, keeping in view the nature of the acts constituting the wrongs, we are of the opinion that the penalty of removal from service in the instant case would not be warranted if the element of the gravest part of the charge against the petitioner i.e. of assaulting SI S.K.Singh is removed from the indictment.
13. We disposed of the writ petition quashing the impugned orders dated March 16, 2000, November 22, 2000 and May 21, 2001.
14. We direct the petitioner to be reinstated in service. We leave it to the discretion of the competent authority to levy such penalty as the competent authority deems appropriate but keep into account that the element of charge No.1 that the petitioner assaulted SI S.K.Singh has not been proved. Meaning thereby, the penalty would be of a kind that the petitioner would not lose his job. The manner in which the period interregnum petitioner being dismissed from service till he is reinstated would be decided by the competent authority. We note that as per Fundamental Rules, upon rendering the necessary qualifying service for pension or attaining a particular age, the department would be entitled to invoke its power under FR 56(j) to proceed to compulsorily retire a Government servant whose service is governed by the Fundamental Rules.
15. Since Fundamental Rules apply to employees of the CISF we make it clear that while considering the service record of the petitioner it would be open to the department to exercise its power under FIR 56(j).
16. Needful shall be done within six months from today.
17. No costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JUDGE APRIL 24, 2014 skb