'Punishment Is Not Disproportionate When Officer Displays Negligent And Irresponsible Conduct', Delhi High Court

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur dismissed a Petition challenging an order of punishment awarded to the Petitioner for being irresponsible while supervising an area he was assigned. The Court held that the punishment was not disproportionate as the Petitioner had been negligent in a similar incident in the past and had shown no signs of improvement leading in another such incident where criminals could steal under the supervision and watch of the Petitioner. Background The Petitioner was on duty between 6 PM to 6 AM for O.H.E. security in the middle of Pilakhua – Dasna. Some criminals managed to cut the catenary wire and stole around 150 meters of wire around the same time. Charges of dereliction of his duties were levelled against him and the Disciplinary Authority found him guilty. The Disciplinary Authority issued an Order on 21.11.2014 and a punishment of reduction of salary by three stages for three years with cumulative effect was granted to the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed an appeal which was rejected by the Appellate Authority by an Order dated 09.02.2015 and later a Revision filed by the Petitioner was also dismissed by an Order dated 26.05.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner approached the Court challenging the Orders dated 21.11.2014, 09.02.2015 and 26.05.2015. Contentions of the Parties: The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was supposed to supervise around 3 kms and it was not possible for him to be present at all the times at the same time for supervision. It was further contended that the criminals assumably would have taken an advantage of the same situation and stolen the wire. The Counsel stated that the Disciplinary Authority had not considered that aspect, penalising the Petitioner for the same. Emphasizing that the punishment awarded to the Petitioner was disproportionate, it was submitted that such punishment imposed with cumulative effect could have bad implications throughout the career of the Petitioner. Meanwhile, the Counsel for the Respondents argued that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate and Revisional Authorities had decided the case on merits and it was found that the Petitioner only had to supervise an area covering 3 kilometres. Stating that the criminals has cut the wire at 12 places and had stolen 150 meters of wire, the Counsel submitted that the same could have been avoided had the Petitioner been vigilant during his hours of duty. Adding to the contentions, the Counsel submitted that three months prior to the happening of the incident, the Petitioner was also found guilty of dereliction of his duties. It was stated that the Petitioner did not show any signs of improvement with respect to the duties assigned to him and therefore the punishment awarded to him could not be labelled as disproportionate. Findings of the Court: The Court upheld the argument that the Petitioner had not performed his duties diligently as he only had to supervise 3 kilometres and while the criminals cut the wire at twelve places under the Petitioner's supervision and watch, he could not notice even one activity. The Court held that although it might be true that the Petitioner could not have been present at all the places, however, it could not go unnoticed that the Petitioner was not able to notice even one incident of cutting of the wire. Observing so, the Court held that there was no infirmity with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. Regarding the proportionality of punishment awarded to the petitioner, the Court held that it could only interfere if the punishment awarded to the Petitioner seemed unreasonable considering the facts of the case. The Bench perused the Order passed by the Court on 23.01.2019 asking the Appellant Authority to pass a reasoned order explaining the reason behind awarding the penalty of reduction of pay by three stages for a period of three years with cumulative effect. As per the order dated 23.01.2019, the Court had held that the Appellate and the Revisional Authorities had only held the Petitioner of being guilty of the charges levelled against him, however, there was no explanation as to whether the punishment was disproportionate or not. Accordingly, the Court had ordered the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order after taking into consideration the past record of the Petitioner, his current conduct and the impact that the punishment would likely have on his future prospects. On 25.02.2019, the Appellant Authority passed an Order stating that the Petitioner had in the past been punished with lowering by two stages for two years without cumulative effect in a similar case where he had failed to prevent theft of OHE during his duty hours. The Order stated that even after being punished for the same, there was no improvement in the conduct of the...

'Punishment Is Not Disproportionate When Officer Displays Negligent And Irresponsible Conduct', Delhi High Court

Syed Nazarat Fatima

Tags