High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/10572/2019

Sunil Kumar Bakshi v. Dsidc Limited Through Its Managing Director & ANR

2020-01-10Hon'Ble Mr. Justice A. K. Chawla2 pages

$~9 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 10572/2019 SUNIL KUMAR BAKSHI ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.

Apurb Lal and Ms.

Meenu Pandey, Advs.

versus DSIDC LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Vinayak Bhandari, Adv.

Mr. H.H. Zaidi, Lega, Assistant, DSIDC

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

O R D E R

% 10.01.2020 The instant writ petition has come to be filed assailing the punishment order dated 25.10.2005, which is to the following effect: "6. Now, therefore, I reach in conclusion that in the overall assessment and in submission before the BOD as the Appellate Authority, it would be sufficient punishment to Sh. S.K. Bakshi that he is reduced in rank for a period of five years with retrospective effect.

As such he may be reinstated in service forthwith, the time spent by him under retirement may be treated as "Break in Services" since five years have already elapsed in March 2005. His substantive designation on the date of reinstatement can be Cashier with the proviso that he shall be eligible for promotion to Senior Cashier's rank and pay scale whenever the next DPC is convened. The hardship endured by the official for the past five years, the loss of dignity and monetary loss and break in service is sufficient punishment."

In the submissions of Mr. Lal, the punishment imposed vide impugned order dated 25.10.2005 was not provided for in any of the rules and regulations of the respondent. The Court does not find any merit in the submissions made.

The rules and regulations for imposition of penalty cannot be exhaustively laid with and therefore, it can simply be said that the penalty is to be imposed by the Disciplinary Authority in his discretion as it may be considered appropriate in the given facts and circumstances. On the principle of delay and laches, in the first instance, and, then, on merits as well, the court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. Dismissed.

A. K. CHAWLA, J JANUARY 10, 2020 acm