DINESH KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against order dated 29.9.2005 passed by the District and Sessions Judge Tis Hazari Courts, the Disciplinary Authority in the enquiry proceedings and the respondent herein, whereunder the petitioner has been awarded punishment under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules) thereby withholding his future increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect.

(2.) Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the petitioner was appointed as a Staff Car Driver with the respondent. In the month of June 2003, the log book pertaining to Car no. DL 1C F3261 got lost. As a result, respondent issued a Memorandum dated 18.5.2004 to the petitioner informing him that the respondent proposed to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 14 of the Rules on the allegations of misconduct. The Charge framed against the petitioner was to the effect that the petitioner while working as a Driver during the period June 2003 lost the Log Book of Pool Car No. DL 1C F-3261 and that being a Driver, it was his primary duty to maintain the Log Book properly and to keep it safe and sound, which the petitioner failed to do, thereby committing an act of gross negligence, carelessness and lack of devotion to duty within the meaning of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, and thus he was liable for disciplinary action.

(3.) As against the aforesaid Memorandum, the petitioner filed a reply dated 24.05.2004 and pleaded that the charges framed against him were false and that the loss of the Log Book was not intentional. Vide its order dated 18.06.2004, the respondent appointed the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, as the Enquiry officer to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. During the course of the said enquiry , two witnesses were examined on behalf of the department, namely Shri. Madan Lal, the driver of the Car No. DL 1C F 3261 and Shri. Gurdeep Singh, LDC, Pool Car Section. On completion of the said proceedings, the Enquiry officer vide his report dated 26.06.2005, held that the department had failed to prove the charges against the petitioner and that the petitioner was duly exonerated of the charges leveled against him. Pursuant thereto, the respondent issued another Memorandum dated 20.07.2005 to the petitioner thereby directing him to submit his representation against the Inquiry Report. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his representation dated 3.8.2005 stating inter alia that as the Enquiry Officer had exonerated him of the charges framed against him, he may be discharged. Thereafter, the respondent issued the impugned order dated 29.09.2005, wherein, while disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, he held the petitioner liable for disciplinary punishment under Rule 14 of the Rules and imposed upon him a punishment of withholding of his future increment for a period of two years, without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court.