← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/8322/2018

Dalbir Singh v. Union Of India & ORS

2018-10-31Hon'Ble Dr. Justice S.Muralidhar,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula2 pages

$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8322/2018 DALBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. U. Srivastava, Advocate.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate with Mr. Devendra Singh, AC CISF.

CORAM:

JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 31.10.2018

1. The prayer in this petition is to set aside the inquiry report dated 19th March 2014, the order dated 4th April 2014 of Disciplinary Authority awarding penalty of compulsory retirement, the order dated 29th January 2015 passed by the Appellate Authority modifying the penalty of reduction of pay by three stages in the time scale of pay band with cumulative effect for a period of 2 years and the order dated 8th February 2018 of the Revisional Authority rejecting the further revision application filed by the Petitioner.

2. The charge against the Petitioner was that on 7th January 2014 he abused his colleagues in the CISF Unit under the influence of alcohol; he forcibly tried to enter the Quarter Guard with wrongful intention and also used W.P.(C) 8322/2018 Page 1 of 2

abusive language towards his senior officers.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and having perused the report and the orders under challenge, the Court is of the view that no error has been committed by the Appellate Authority in modifying the penalty of compulsory retirement to one of reduction of pay by three stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect and reinstating the Petitioner in service. Considering the charge and that the Respondent is a paramilitary force it appears to the Court that the reduction of the penalty in the manner indicated cannot be said to be unfair or unreasonable. The order of the Revisional Authority, therefore, does not warrant interference. It also requires to be noted that the revision application was filed by the Petitioner after considerable delay of two and a half years after the order of the Appellate Authority.

4. There is no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J.

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

OCTOBER 31, 2018 tr W.P.(C) 8322/2018 Page 2 of 2