RAMESH VIMAL Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition challenging the order dated 9th September, 2005 passed by the respondent holding that the petitioner was negligent in his duties and was not properly doing work nor he performed his duties as per High Court rules and, therefore, imposing a penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect subsequent to this order.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order contending inter alia that the disciplinary Authority had completely ignored the defense version and the fact that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person and the penalty imposed upon him is not a minor penalty and is too harsh.

(3.) THE petition is contested by the respondent contending inter alia that the petitioner failed to complete the peshi register despite two memos issued to him by the Metropolitan Magistrate and it had also been reported that the petitioner had not forwarded the case on peshi register for the last seven years. The petitioner is also alleged to have two memos issued to him on 27th september, 2003 and 6th December, 2003 by the Administrative Branch for joining the duties immediately and to complete the peshi register as per the rules laid down by the High Court. It is contended that the memo of 6th December, 2003 was issued for non-completion of peshi register despite issuance of memos dated 27th august, 2003; 27th September, 2003 and 18th October, 2003. It is also asserted by the respondent that the petition for judicial review of order dated 9th september, 2005 is based on evidence and for the judicial review the Court is not to exercise jurisdiction as an appellate Court and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable and in any case it is contended that the petitioner has an alternative remedy available to him to file an appeal against the order dated 9th September, 2005 and therefore, this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.