Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: February 06, 2024
JUDGMENT
(9) VISHAL N.A...... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber and Mr. Nikunj Arora, Advs.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Ms. Mishika Pandita, Advs. with Insp. Sanjay Kumar, CISF, Law Officer CORAM: HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “In view of the above, it is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(i) issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the penalty order dated 26.04.2014, the order dated 30.12.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Reviewing Authority; and
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to expunge the penalty of "Reduction of pay by one stage from Rs.10560/- to Rs.10130/- in Pay Band 11(9300-34800) with immediate effect for a period of one year" and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner as admissible in law.
(iii) Pass any such orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the light of above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case. W.P.(C) 4879/2016 Page 2
2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated April 26, 2024, Appellate Authority order dated December 30, 2014 and the Reviewing Authority order dated September 30, 2015 whereby the petitioner has been imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage from ₹10560/- to ₹10130/- in Pay Band II (9300-34800) with immediate effect for a period of one year.
3. At the outset, it may be stated that the charge against the petitioner is the following: “Directorate General Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs) Block No. 13, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3 No.V-11014/48/2015/L&R 1225 Dated 30 September 2015 ORDER WHEREAS, No. 061737798 Ex SI (Exe) Vishal N.A. of CISF ASG Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner was dealt under rule 36 of CISF Rules 2001, vide Charge Memorandum No.V-15014/38/13)/Disc-36/13-21774 dated 06.11.2013 for the following charge:- Force No. 061737798 SI/Exe Vishal N. A. was deployed in CISF Unit AIG Airport, New Delhi on 15.10.2013 at day shift from 0700 hours to 2000 hours at T-3 Departure Domestic for X-BIS No 13 for domestic SHA screening. The Force member at about 1100 hours was unable to detect the dummy IED which was kept in the bag of BWFS employee at X-BIS No. 13 during screening, which shows grave negligence and dereliction his duty.” W.P.(C) 4879/2016 Page 3
4. It is conceded position that the charge against the petitioner has been proved.
5. Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn our attention to grounds (D), (E), (F) and (H) of the petition to contend that, in similar circumstances where a person could not identify the dummy object which was put in the x-ray machine, has either been imposed the penalty of warning or has been let off. The relevant grounds in that regard are reproduced as under:-
(d) SI/Exe Sanjay Kumar, senior to the petitioner was awarded only 'warning' vide order dated 28.07.2014, although a small knife passed undetected through the scanner when he was on duty as Screener. (e) ASI/Exe RK Roy was awarded only 'warning' vide order dated 18.05.2014 for his failure to detect two litres of juice passed through the scanning machine undetected, when he was on duty as Screener when the permissible limit is only 100ml. Therefore, it suffices to say that the case of the petitioner has been isolated and treated to his disadvantage. It is also submitted that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is very severe and is highly discriminatory and also violative of the 'principle of equality' before law and equal protection of law' enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. For an alleged misconduct of such trivial nature, the impugned penalty is grave enough to shock the conscience of a prudent person. Such a penalty is not maintainable as per law laid down by Supreme Court in the matter of B.C. Chaturvedi vs. UOI, AIR 1996-SC 484. Copies of relevant orders are annexed herein as Annexure P-32.
6. He submits that, in terms of the Circular No. AS-17/2006 dated October 16, 2006 and ADG/APS Circular No. O- 42013/CISF/APC/OPS(2)/Circular(AS)-08-3525 dated April 24, 2009 issued by the respondents, the authorities could not have imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage as imposed by them against the petitioner.
7. It is his submission that, if it is the first failure on the part of the employee, he can only be warned to be more careful and not to repeat such lapses in future. He also submits that, in one case, the officer has been exonerated. Therefore, the nature of charge/gravity of charge being same, W.P.(C) 4879/2016 Page 6 the petitioner should be exonerated. He submits the respondents have not disputed the grounds taken in the petition.
8. Mr. Chhibber has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Raj Pal Singh, (2010) 5 SCC 783, wherein, the Supreme Court has in paragraphs 5 and 6, held as under:-
9. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the circular dated April 24, 2009, stating that, when misdemeanor in the manner committed by the petitioner is held to be proved, a disciplinary action is required to be initiated with appropriate punishment. W.P.(C) 4879/2016 Page 7
10. Noting the stand taken by the petitioner that on identical charge (s), the officers were either warned or exonerated, we are of the view, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as noted above, the plea urged by Mr. Chhibber is required to be considered by the Reviewing Authority being the final Authority. Accordingly, keeping in view the punishment imposed on the other officers, the Reviewing Authority is directed to take a final decision on the aspect of parity in punishment imposed against the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks as an outer limit. Needless to say, the respondents shall communicate the outcome thereof to the petitioner within a week thereafter.
11. With the aforesaid, we dispose of the writ petition.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
SAURABH BANERJEE, J FEBRUARY 06, 2024