The High Court dismissed the petitioner's plea for exemption from removal penalty following his criminal acquittal due to differing standards of proof in proceedings. The Court held that treating the penalty period as non-dutiable worked no hardship.
N/A
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
+ WP(C) No. 1466/2016
% Date of Decision: 26th February, 2016
RAJVIR SINGH …Petitioner Through : Mr.Prakash Chandra, Advocate
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS …Respondents Through :
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
“While working under Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (TRS), Tughlakabad on 09.07.1999 at about 9.30 a.m. when Shri A.K.Garg, Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (TRS), Tughlakabad had reached at Loco shed, committed misconduct of beating him and attacked him by throwing his chappal (sleepers) on his head & abused him and threatened to kill him.”
Page 1 of 6
WP(C) 1466/2016
Page 2 of 6
WP(C) 1466/2016
duties. The petitioner it was alleged had physically assaulted Ashok Kumar Garg, Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (TRS), Tughlakabad. The prosecution lingered on and had remained pending for more than 10 years, before being decided by the judgment dated 15.09.2010. Ashok Kumar Garg, who had appeared as PW-3, testified and affirmed slogan shouting by a mob who had also indulged in beating the doors and disrupting work. He and his colleagues were confined in his room since morning and power supply of the administration block was switched off. This had resulted in delay in outage of locomotives on line for working trains. It is, however, highlighted that A.K. Garg did not state that the accused were the persons involved or a part of the mob. Other witnesses had also testified about the occurrence, but did not identify the accused as the persons responsible. In view of the aforesaid evidence, the Metropolitan Magistrate by his judgment dated 15th September, 2010, held that it could not be established with certainty that the accused facing prosecution were involved in the incident and had wrongly confined the public servants. The prosecution must strictly prove the offence alleged and had failed to do so and accordingly, the accused
Page 3 of 6
WP(C) 1466/2016
including the petitioner, were acquitted from the charges giving them benefit of doubt.
Page 4 of 6
WP(C) 1466/2016
Page 5 of 6
WP(C) 1466/2016
proceeding, such evidence/material may be accepted and taken on record and considered.
(SANJIV KHANNA)
JUDGE
(NAJMI WAZIRI) JUDGE
February 26th , 2016 ssn
Page 6 of 6
WP(C) 1466/2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner acquitted in criminal proceedings is entitled to exemption from disciplinary penalty imposed for the same incident based on different standards of proof.
Whether treating the period of penalty as dies non under Rule 1343 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code constituted a fresh cause of action.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And Anr.Referred¶8
(1999) 3 SCC 679 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RAJVIR SINGH
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
SANJIV KHANNA
NAJMI WAZIRI
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
