Delhi High Court: In a petition challenging the order dated 21-11-2014, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby the petitioner was found guilty of the alleged charges and was punished by reducing his salary by three stages for three years with cumulative effect, the Division Bench of Navin Chawla* and Shalinder Kaur, JJ., observed that the Appellate Authority had considered the previous conduct of the petitioner, wherein he was punished by reduction for two stages for two years “without cumulative effect” in a similar case, where he failed to prevent the theft of overhead electric wires while being on duty. In spite of the punishment and only around three months thereafter, in the present case, he was again found negligent of the same offence.
The Court observed that after considering this, the Appellate Authority opined that in spite of the imposition of the punishment in the earlier instance, the petitioner had not changed or mended his ways and had remained lethargic and irresponsible on duty. Thus, considering the given facts, the Court stated that it did not find the punishment awarded to the petitioner to be disproportionate as warranting any interference of this Court and accordingly, disposed of the present petition.
Background
The allegation against the petitioner was that on 26/27-07-2014, when the petitioner was on duty, some criminals cut the contact and catenary wire at 12 different places on the up line and stole around 150 meters of wire. Therefore, dereliction of duty was alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner was found guilty of the said charge and was subsequently, punished by the above-mentioned order dated 21-11-2014.
Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed an appeal and thereafter, a revision, which were both dismissed by the impugned orders dated 09-02-2015 and 26-05-2015, respectively. The petitioner submitted that the Disciplinary Authority had failed to consider that the total area under the supervision of the petitioner was around 3 kms and he could not have been present at all places at the same time. The criminals took advantage of the same and committed the theft. It was further submitted that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was disproportionate, as it had been imposed with cumulative effect and as such should have an impact throughout the petitioner’s career.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that it did not find any infirmity in the finding of facts of the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner supervised an area of around 3 kms, and the wire had been cut at 12 places and around 150 meters of wire had been stolen while the area was under his supervision and watch. The Court stated that though it might be true that the petitioner could not have been present at the same time on the entire stretch of 3 kms, however, the criminals having carried out activities at 12 places without being noticed by the petitioner, clearly showed that he was not diligent in the performance of his duty and it is a case of gross dereliction thereof.
Further, regarding issue of proportionality of punishment awarded to the petitioner, the Court stated that it could interfere only if the punishment awarded to the petitioner was found to be unconscionable considering the facts of the case. The Court stated that the Appellate Authority had considered the previous conduct of the petitioner, wherein he had been punished by reduction for two stages for two years “without cumulative effect” in a similar case wherein he had failed to prevent the theft of overhead electric wires while being on duty. In spite of the punishment and only around three months thereafter, in the present case, he was again found negligent of the same offence.
The Court observed that after considering this, the Appellate Authority opined that in spite of the imposition of the punishment in the earlier instance, the petitioner had not changed or mended his ways and had remained lethargic and irresponsible on duty. Despite the same, the Appellant Authority reduced the punishment awarded to the petitioner for the present incident by lowering his pay by two stages for three years with cumulative effect in the existing scale of pay.
Thus, considering the given facts, the Court stated that it did not find the punishment awarded to the petitioner to be disproportionate as warranting any interference of this Court and accordingly, disposed of the present petition.
[Babrey Singh v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 7570 of 2016, decided on 07-01-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Navin Chawla
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Saahila Lamba, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Umesh Burnwal, SPC, Kunal Mallik, Paramjeet and Priya Gaur, Advocates.