MAHIPAL SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER instructions from the petitioner learned counsel gives up all pleas except pertaining to the penalty levied upon the petitioner by urging that the penalty violates Rule 8(d)(ii) of the Delhi Police Punishment and Appeal Rules 1980.

(2.) VIDE order dated November 22, 1999, the Disciplinary Authority has levied the penalty upon the petitioner of reducing his pay by five stages in the time-scale of pay for a period of five years with further direction that during the period of reduction the petitioner will not earn increments and further on the expiration of the said period the reduction will have the effect of postponing petitioner's future increments of pay.

(3.) WE need not bother ourselves to interpret sub-rule (ii) of clause-d of Rule 8 of the Delhi Police Punishment and Appeal Rules 1980 inasmuch as a Division Bench of this Court has interpreted the same in a judgment dated September 17, 2002 deciding a large number of writ petitions, lead matter being WP(C) No.2368/2000 'Shakti Singh v. UOI & Ors.' The phrase 'permanently or temporarily' in sub-clause (ii) of clause-d