MANISHA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has impugned the orders dated 27.9.2010 and 13.11.2010 (Annexures P -1 and P -1A respectively) passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Panchkula, whereby the petitioner, who was working at the relevant point of time as Record Lifter under the Panchkula Sessions Division, has been imposed the penalty of withholding of five increments of pay with cumulative effect and further the suspension period from 12.9.2005 to 7.4.2009 has been ordered to be treated to be period not spent on duty and her allowances have been confined to the extent of amount already paid to her as subsistence and other allowances. Further challenge is to the order dated 5.5.2012 (Annexure P -2), whereby the service appeal preferred by the petitioner, has been dismissed by this Court on the administrative side thereby affirming the order of penalty.

(2.) BRIEF facts that would require notice are that Mr. Ravi Kant, a practicing Advocate at Panchkula submitted a complaint to the District & Sessions Judge, Panchkula as regards the petitioner having misbehaved with him on 5.9.2005. On 6.9.2005 the petitioner was called upon to furnish her reply to the complaint. The reply submitted by the petitioner having been perused, she was charge sheeted on 28.11.2005 on the following Articles of Charge: -

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue that there was no material before the Inquiry Officer on the basis of which an opinion could have been formed so as to sustain the charges levelled against the petitioner. Counsel would urge that the petitioner has been punished on account of the fact that she was the whistle blower in the Traffic Challan Scandal pertaining to FIR No.288 dated 17.4.2003 registered in Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula. It has been contended that a number of employees of the District Courts, Panchkula were involved in such Scandal and it is only to teach the petitioner a lesson that the entire disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her and which have finally culminated in the passing of the order of penalty. Counsel would also strenuously argue that the charge levelled against the petitioner is with regard to hurting of male ego and which in itself would be contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India as no discrimination would be permissible between males and females as regards hurting of ego. It has also been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the order of penalty cannot sustain as the same has been passed in relation to a private complaint and does not relate to her conduct while discharge of official duty. Learned counsel would further submit that in the service appeal, this Court on the administrative side has absolved the petitioner of two charges in which the petitioner had been held guilty by the Inquiry Officer and as such, the major penalty of withholding of five annual increments with cumulative effect is grossly disproportionate.