High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/8202/2018

T.T. Murthy v. Union Of India And ANR.

2018-11-01Hon'Ble Dr. Justice S.Muralidhar,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula2 pages

$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8202/2018 & CM APPL. 31435/2018 T.T. MURTHY ..... Petitioner Through:

None versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Rajesh Kumar with Ms.

Santwana, Advocates with A. Samyal A/c CISF.

CORAM:

JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 01.11.2018

1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 25th September 2014 passed by the Inspector General/Airport Sector, Central Industrial Security Force („CISF‟) declining his plea for reviewing the penalty awarded to him of compulsory retirement with full pension benefit.

2. The Petitioner was issued a charge-sheet which contains three articles of charge. According to Article 1, the Petitioner, detailed for the second shift did not report for duty from 3rd to 31st January 2013 without informing the relevant authorities. As per Article 2, he was remaining absent from 05th to 15th February, 2013 without notice and permission. W.P.(C) 8202/2018

3. The Petitioner had already been awarded major and minor punishment earlier on ten different occasions and each of them was on account of absence from duty without permission during the years from 1992 to 2011.

4. After the appellate authority agreed with the disciplinary authority on the quantum of punishment, the Petitioner filed a revision petition, which has been rejected by the impugned order, which is a detailed one.

5. The impugned order notes that time and again the Petitioner has shown utter disrespect and disregard in his commitment to the Department and that he was a habitual offender as regards absences and overstay of leave.

6. Having heard to learned counsel for the parties and having examined all of the impugned orders and considering his past conduct, the Court is not persuaded to conclude that the punishment awarded to the Petitioner is disproportionate. Consequently, the Court finds no legal error in the impugned orders. The petition and pending application are accordingly dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J SANJEEV NARULA, J NOVEMBER 01, 2018 Js W.P.(C) 8202/2018