YATENDER KUMAR PANDEY Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OF the various contentions pleaded in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the departmental record produced pertaining to the petitioner's trial at the Summary Security Court Force, he gives up all contentions urged save and except one.

(2.) A very funny submission has been advance before us. It is urged that for a similar offence i.e. making false allegations against superior officers, in the past penalty awarded to the petitioner was confinement to line for 28 days and thus for a similar offence repeated penalty of dismissal from service has to be disproportionate. Counsel urges that if for same offence 28 days force custody is sufficient penalty, then it does not stand to logic or reason that petitioner should be dismissed from service.

(3.) SUFFICE would it be to state that that petitioner's service profile is far from satisfactory. It is settled law that where an employee indulges in repeated misconduct, on the subject of penalty to be imposed, past conduct can be considered. We may highlight that on seven occasions, the misdemeanour of over-staying leave was condoned by regularizing the leave. Thrice before has the petitioner been sentenced to undergo either RI for 21 days and 28 days or confinement to the lines for 28 days. One, out of the three offences was of leveling false allegations against superior officers. This offence was indulged for a second time. It cannot thus be said that the penalty levied is excessive. That in the past for a similar offence a lesser penalty was levied is no ground to seek parity on the subject of penalty for the reason a wrong repeated twice, at the repeated stage of the wrong, would make the wrong an aggravated wrong.