HARISH KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSIONSJUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present petition, an order of the District Judge dated 21.04.2005, removing the petitioner for misconduct, and the order of the appellate authority confirming that removal order, are impugned.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the petitioner, an employee in the Delhi District Court at Tis Hazari was served with a memorandum on 24.10.2000, initiating an inquiry against him under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereafter called "the Rules"). The substance of the charges leveled were that he acted negligently and carelessly in regard to the custody of files relating to a criminal proceeding" State v. Dalip Bansal and Rakesh under Sections 28/112 of the Delhi Police Act, PS Karol Bagh. The inquiry into the charges was on the basis that at its culmination, the petitioner, if found guilty, would be imposed with minor penalty. During the course of proceedings, the disciplinary authority relied upon the documentary material as well as the statements of some witnesses who were permitted to be cross - examined. Likewise, the petitioner" delinquent official - was permitted to lead evidence in support of his plea of innocence. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the officer in his report dated 20.11.2004 held that the destruction of the original kalandara or records was within the petitioner's knowledge and that it was his primary duty to keep the judicial record in safe custody. The Inquiry Officer thereafter went on to say that:

(3.) LEARNED counsel argued that having adopted the procedure for minor penalty under Rule 16 of the Rules, the disciplinary authority ought not to have prejudiced the petitioner, at the fag -end of the proceeding, without following the procedure prescribed, by imposing major penalty. It is contended that in major penalty proceedings under Rule 14 of the Rules, the officer concerned is put to notice of the possibility of the imposition of major penalty and can, therefore, respond to the notice and present appropriate evidence which might be elaborate. On the other hand, minor penalty proceedings are premised upon the imposition of lighter punishment for which the response would be of an entirely different kind. Learned counsel relied upon a learned Single Judge decision of this Court in Jeet K. Saroha (decided on 06.02.2007). The Court in that instance had set aside the major penalty imposed upon the employee by the District Judge in a similar circumstance, and held that when a delinquent official is charge sheeted for minor penalty, major penalty cannot be imposed upon him. Learned counsel also relied upon the ruling of the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab : 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 504.