A dismissed Process Server challenged only the proportionality of dismissal for demanding Rs. 300 bribe to file false service report. The Court held quantum of punishment lies with disciplinary authorities absent conscience-shocking disproportionality, and upheld dismissal.
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.
$~193
Decided on 08.01.2025
versus
HONBLE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HEAD QUARTERS .....Respondent Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, StandingCounsel (GNCTD) Services with Mr. NiteshKumar Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. AlizaAlam and Mr. MohnishSehrawat, Advocates.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Da te:1 0.01.2025 20:30:24
Page 1 of 7
W.P.(C) 10874/2022
issued confined to this aspect.
“That Sh. Manoj Kumar, Process Server (Emp. Code: 90310) S/o Sh. Anoop Singh, while posted in Nazarat Branch, Rohini Courts, Delhi were entrusted with three summons in petition No. 536/08, titled as “Arun Mishra Vs. Praveen Kumar” in petition N. 537/08 titled as “Meera Devi Vs. Praveen Kumar” and in petition No. 538/08, titled as “Hari Mohan Jha Vs. Praveen Kumar” issued from the court of Sh.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Da te:1 0.01.2025 20:30:24
Page 2 of 7
W.P.(C) 10874/2022
Pradeep Chaddah, Ld. Judge. MACT, Rohini Courts, Delhi for effecting service upon Sh. Praveen Kumar. Respondent No. 1 at R/o Gali No. 18, Plot No. 1, Near Honda Service Centre, Rithla Village, Delhi for appearance before the court on 26.08.2008 but he gave false report on the summons that the house of Sh. Praveen Kumar, Respondent No. 1 was found locked. After enquiry from neighbourhood, it was come to notice that Sh. Praveen Kumar went to his village.
Whereas as per statement of Sh. Praveen Kumar dated 27.08.2008, he is residing at the aforesaid address since 15 years. On 24.08.2008 at about 02:00 PM, he reached at the aforesaid address for effecting service of summons and demanded bribe of Rs. 300/ from Sh. Praveen Kumar, Respondent Na 1. He said that in case Sh. Praveen Kumar paid him, he will give report that the room of Sh. Praveen Kumar was fond locked and Sh. Praveen Kumar would not have to appear before the court. Sh. Praveen Kumar, Respondent No. 1 refused to pay him. Thus, he did not deliver the summons to Sh. Praveen Kumar. Respondent No. 1.
Being a Government servant, he was required to serve the process and return the same to the Nazarat Branch/concerned court within the time and maintain integrity and devotion to his duty but he failed to do so.”
“10. It is not in dispute that the delinquent was posted as Process Serverin Nazarat Branch, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi and assigned thealleged summons for effecting its service upon Sh. Praveen Kumar,Respondent No. 1. It has come on record that the delinquent did not deliverthe said summon to the Respondent No. 1 namely Sh. Praveen Kumar anddemanded bribe of Rs. 300/- and filed false report. The plea raised by the delinquent is that he did not meet any of person
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Da te:1 0.01.2025 20:30:24
Page 3 of 7
W.P.(C) 10874/2022
namely Sh. Praveen Kumaras the premises was found locked. However, the complainant Sh. PraveenKumar appeared in the concerned court without service of summon andidentified the delinquent for the first time in the court of Sh. PradeepChaddha, Judge MACT, Rohini Court, Delhi. The delinquent also raised his plea that he did not demand any bribe from the complainant Sh. Praveen Kumar, but the complainant Sh. Praveen Kumar has consistently and categorically testified that the delinquent demanded Rs. 300/- from him for making false report. The defence of the delinquent is merely bald avermentwithout any evidence support of his case. I, therefore, have no reason todiffer with the finding given by the Inquiry Officer.
11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and natureof misconduct committed by the delinquent, I am of the view that ends ofjustice would be met by imposing a penalty of ‘dismissal from service’.
12. In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-rules (4) & (5) of Rule30 of Delhi District Courts Establishment (Appointment & Conditions ofService) Rules, 2012. I hereby impose a penalty of dismissal from serviceupon the delinquent Sh. Manoj Kumar, Process Server with immediateeffect.”
“16. On the quantum of the punishment, I again find no merit on the submission of the learned Defence Assistant. The appellant was posted as a Process Server at the relevant time. The Court relies upon the report of the Process Server for finding whether the person sought to be served has been duly served and further proceeding against him can be taken in the case of his non-appearance in the court. Therefore, utmost faith and trust is reposed by the court on the report of the Process Server. He discharges an important function in judicial dispensation. Any infraction by him in his duty and the breach of faith reposed upon him, therefore, has to be taken seriously, and must be dealt with appropriately. I, therefore, find that the punishment imposed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Da te:1 0.01.2025 20:30:24
Page 4 of 7
W.P.(C) 10874/2022
upon the appellant is proportionate to the charges established againsthim.”
“19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities.
19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority.
19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court.
19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case.
1(1987) 4 SCC 611
2[1992 Suppl. (2) SCC 312]
3(2013) 12 SCC 372
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Da te:1 0.01.2025 20:30:24
Page 5 of 7
W.P.(C) 10874/2022
19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If the co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Da te:1 0.01.2025 20:30:24
Page 6 of 7
W.P.(C) 10874/2022
Authority, are that the petitioner had demanded illegal gratification in lieu of filing a false report before the Court. These findingsare not under challenge. In such circumstances, there is no ground to interfere with the view of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority,that the petitioner is liable to the punishment of dismissal from service.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
JANUARY 8, 2025 ‘Bhupi/JM’/
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Da te:1 0.01.2025 20:30:24
Page 7 of 7
W.P.(C) 10874/2022
1 issue framed by the court
Whether dismissal from service for a Process Server demanding illegal gratification was a proportionate penalty warranting judicial interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India and Ors.Referred
(1987) 4 SCC 611 · Who else cites this
[1992 Suppl. (2) SCC 312] · Who else cites this
Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra SinghRelied on¶9
(2013) 12 SCC 372 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Manoj Kumar
Hon'ble District and Sessions Judge, Head Quarters
Prateek Jalan
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
