Karan Singh Arya vs. Union Of India & Anr. - (High Court of Delhi) (17 Feb 2022)

Present Court is not supposed to substitute its decision over the decision of administrative authority

MANU/DE/0552/2022

Service

Present petition is filed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus and for direction/order, thereby quashing/setting-aside the impugned Memorandum/order passed by the Respondent, whereby the Competent Authority has sought to impose penalty of withholding 10% of monthly pension of the Petitioner for period of one year.

It is the grievance of the Petitioner out of four charges, three charges were never proved and only one charge was proved partly per the enquiry report and vide a letter dated 30th January, 2020 a penalty was imposed upon the Petitioner of withholding 10 % of his monthly pension for a period of one year. It is alleged this order is arbitrary.

Admittedly, the prime function of Respondent no.2 is to employ officers to visit the market and to submit a market surveillance report along with samples drawn for independent testing. If such employees return such samples after seizing, it would not only be violating the law but also would be acting under grave negligence, considering the nature of duties they are expected to perform. The facts do show the negligence committed by the Petitioner. Even otherwise, this Court is not supposed to substitute its decision over the decision of administrative authority.

Under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, penalty of withholding the pension or retiral benefits, full or in part, can be imposed even on ground of negligence. Negligence has been defined in Cambridge Dictionary Online to mean failure to give enough care or attention to someone or something that you are responsible for. Misconduct has been defined in Cambridge Dictionary Online to mean unacceptable or bad behaviour by someone in a position of authority or responsibility. Admittedly, charge no. 2 was proved against the Petitioner to an extent the undersigned had not submitted Market Surveillance Report as per the procedure, thus violating Rules 3(1) (ii) & (iii) of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964.

The representation furnished by the Petitioner has been duly considered by the competent authority. Accordingly, the penalty has been imposed as per the applicable provisions of CCS Conduct Rules, 1972 and after following the due procedure. Petition dismissed.

Tags : PENALTY IMPOSITION LEGALITY