K P SHARMA Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner restricts her submissions to the proportionality of the penalty imposed upon the writ petitioner and for which she highlights that co-accused HC Bhullan Singh admitted having picked up 100 empty urea bags from within the precincts of NFL Panipat; that save and except the instant incident the petitioner had an unblemished service of 19 years; penalty of removal from service is thus stated to be disproportionate inasmuch as entire service of 19 years rendered by the petitioner has been washed away. He gets no pension.

(2.) THE petitioner does not dispute that he and HC Bhullan Singh had driven a fire-tender to within the precincts of NFL Panipat and that in his presence HC Bhullan Singh picked up 100 old empty bags of urea and hid them under the driver's seat and additionally when petitioner and HC Bhullan Singh came outside the precincts of NFL Panipat they made an entry in the register at the gate in which aforesaid was not disclosed.

(3.) ASSUMING HC Bhullan Singh, who admitted to have picked up the bags did so, but the fact of the matter would remain that he did so under the nose of the petitioner. Now, if somebody picks up a bag or two of unused old bags, it may be said that the principle of de minimis is attracted, but when 100 empty jute bags are picked up, it cannot be said that the act is small. Justification by HC Bhullan Singh that he picked up the bags for personal use has to be taken with a pinch of salt inasmuch as nobody would personally use 100 jute bags. Qua the petitioner, what is relevant is that his common-sense ought to have told him that Bhullan Singh picking up 100 bags was not an innocent act. The petitioner is a CISF force personnel and was a part of a contingent stationed at NFL Panipat to guard the precincts of NFL Panipat and thus, by training, the petitioner ought to have known that nobody, much less a force personnel, should be permitted to surreptitiously remove 100 empty old bags of urea.