K.D. AGGARWAL Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER K.D. Aggarwal, was working as Ahlmad in the Court of Sh. S.M. Aggawal, Additional District Judge, Delhi. On 20th September, 1994, aforesaid court reported about missing of five execution files as detailed in the Enquiry Report (Annexure P -12). On 12th May, 1997, petitioner was charge sheeted for the loss of the above said execution files. In the Enquiry held against the petitioner three witnesses had deposed, whereas the petitioner himself had deposed in his defence. On 26th May, 2001, Enquiry Officer submitted her Report (Annexure P -12) holding the petitioner guilty of gross negligence and carelessness. The Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the District and Session Judge, Delhi, vide Order of 17th May, 2004, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner while holding as under: - Being an Ahlmad the charged official should have acted very carefully, cautiously and diligently but he has not taken care of these attributes resulting in the loss of 5 judicial files and has thus acted with gross negligence and carelessness. I may mention that this is not his first and the only case of loss of records. There have been 7 (seven) enquiries of loss of files against him. He has been exonerated in two enquiries. 5 (five) enquiries are still pending. In the year 2002, his Presiding Officer has given him the remark 'doubtful' regarding integrity. I am mentioning this because evidently he has become habitually negligent and carefree not realizing that loss of Court file means loss of faith of the public in the judicial systems. So in a way he is subverting the Justice Delivery System. He, therefore, in my view, deserves no sympathy and is not a fit person to continue in the Court service. I, therefore, impose a punishment of dismissal from service upon Sh. K.D. Aggarwal, Reader of this office with immediate effect. Formal order be issued.

(2.) THE effect of impugned Orders (AnnexuresP -1 and P -2) passed by the Disciplinary Authority on the same day, is same.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that evidence on record does not prove the charge against the petitioner. In substance, the stand of the petitioner is as follows: