Mr. S.C. Singhal, Advocate for Mr. M.S. Rohilla, Advocate v. HONBLE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HEAD QUARTERS Through

Judgment

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner assails an order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 09.11.2017, by which penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon him, as well as an order dated 06.12.2017 declining to review the aforesaid order, and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 20.05.2022, by which the

order of the Disciplinary Authority was affirmed.

2. On the very first date of hearing of this writ petition, the Court recorded that the challenge was pressed only on the issue of proportionality of the penalty imposed upon the petitioner, and notice was Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:10.01.2025 20:30:24 W.P.(C) 10874/2022 issued confined to this aspect.

3. I have heard Mr. M.S. Rohilla, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the respondent, on this limited question.

4. The petitioner was in the service of the District Courts, Delhi, as a Process Server. The disciplinary proceedings arose under a memorandum dated 30.08.2011. The allegation against the petitioner was based upon a statement made by one Mr. Praveen Kumar before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in connection with Case No. 538/2008, in which he was a respondent. The allegation was that summons were issued to Mr. Praveen Kumar to appear before the Tribunal on 26.08.2008, but when the petitioner visited the residence of Mr. Kumar on 24.08.2008, he demanded a sum of Rs.300/- from Mr. Kumar, in order to furnish a report that the petitioner’s premises was locked. It was the contention of Mr. Kumar that he refused to pay, and the summons were not delivered to him. However, Mr.Kumar appeared before the Tribunal, and his statement to this effect was recorded on 27.08.2008. Pursuant to this statement, the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal sent a report to the learned District & Sessions Judge dated 27.08.2008, which led to the commencement of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority, by its order dated 09.11.2017, noted that the disciplinary inquiry was held on the following charges: “That Sh. Manoj Kumar, Process Server (Emp. Code: 90310) S/o Sh. Anoop Singh, while posted in Nazarat Branch, Rohini Courts, Delhi were entrusted with three summons in petition No. 536/08, titled as “Arun Mishra Vs. Praveen Kumar” in petition N. 537/08 titled as “Meera Devi Vs. Praveen Kumar” and in petition No. 538/08, titled as “Hari Mohan Jha Vs. Praveen Kumar” issued from the court of Sh. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:10.01.2025 20:30:24 W.P.(C) 10874/2022 Pradeep Chaddah, Ld. Judge. MACT, Rohini Courts, Delhi effecting service upon Sh. Praveen Kumar. Respondent No. 1 at R/o Gali No. 18, Plot No. 1, Near Honda Service Centre, Rithla Village, Delhi for appearance before the court on 26.08.2008 but he gave false the house of Sh. Praveen Kumar, report on the summons that Respondent No. neighbourhood, it was come to notice that Sh. Praveen Kumar went to his village. locked. After 1 was enquiry Whereas as per statement of Sh. Praveen Kumar dated 27.08.2008, he is residing at the aforesaid address since 15 years. On 24.08.2008 at about 02:00 PM, he reached at the aforesaid address for effecting service of summons and demanded bribe of Rs. 300/ from Sh. Praveen Kumar, Respondent Na 1. He said that in case Sh. Praveen Kumar paid him, he will give report that the room of Sh. Praveen Kumar was fond locked and Sh. Praveen Kumar would not have to appear before the court. Sh. Praveen Kumar, Respondent No. 1 refused to pay him. Thus, he did not deliver the summons to Sh. Praveen Kumar. Respondent No. 1. Being a Government servant, he was required to serve the process and return the same to the Nazarat Branch/concerned court within the time and maintain integrity and devotion to his duty but he failed to do so.”

5. The petitioner did not submit a reply to the memorandum of charges. The Inquiry Officer, by his report dated 03.06.2013, held the charge proved.

6. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 03.07.2013 under Rule 15(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. His reply dated 18.07.2013 was considered by the Disciplinary Authority, and he was also given an opportunity of personal hearing. The Disciplinary Authority recorded the following order: “10. It is not in dispute that the delinquent was posted as Process Serverin Nazarat Branch, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi and assigned thealleged summons for effecting its service upon Sh. Praveen Kumar,Respondent No. 1. It has come on record that the delinquent did not deliverthe said summon to the Respondent No. 1 namely Sh. Praveen Kumar anddemanded bribe of Rs. 300/- and filed false report. The plea raised by the delinquent is that he did not meet any of person Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:10.01.2025 20:30:24 W.P.(C) 10874/2022 namely Sh. Praveen Kumaras the premises was found locked. However, the complainant Sh. PraveenKumar appeared in the summon andidentified the service of concerned court without delinquent for the first time in the court of Sh. PradeepChaddha, Judge MACT, Rohini Court, Delhi. The delinquent also raised his plea that he did not demand any bribe from the complainant Sh. Praveen Kumar, but the complainant Sh. Praveen Kumar has consistently and categorically testified that the delinquent demanded Rs. 300/- from him for making false report. The defence of the delinquent is merely bald avermentwithout any evidence support of his case. I, therefore, have no reason todiffer with the finding given by the Inquiry Officer.

11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and natureof misconduct committed by the delinquent, I am of the view that ends ofjustice would be met by imposing a penalty of ‘dismissal from service’.

12. In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-rules (4) & (5) of (Appointment & Rule30 of Delhi District Courts Establishment Conditions ofService) Rules, 2012. I hereby impose a penalty of dismissal from serviceupon the delinquent Sh. Manoj Kumar, Process Server with immediateeffect.”

7. After dismissal of his application for review of the order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The order of the Appellate Authority dated 20.05.2022 affirmed the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, both on merits and on the quantum of punishment. As far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, which is the only aspect under challenge in this writ petition, the order of the Appellate Authority is as follows: “16. On the quantum of the punishment, I again find no merit on the submission of the learned Defence Assistant. The appellant was posted as a Process Server at the relevant time. The Court relies upon the report of the Process Server for finding whether the person sought to be served has been duly served and further proceeding against him can be taken in the case of his non-appearance in the court. Therefore, utmost faith and trust is reposed by the court on the report of the function in judicial Process Server. He discharges an important dispensation. Any infraction by him in his duty and the breach of faith reposed upon him, therefore, has to be taken seriously, and must be dealt with appropriately. I, therefore, find that the punishment imposed Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:10.01.2025 20:30:24 W.P.(C) 10874/2022 upon the appellant againsthim.” is proportionate to the charges established Mr. Rohilla cited the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ranjit 8. Thakur vs. Union of India And Ors.1, and in H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-Cum Assessing Authority, Karnal And Ors. vs. M/s Gopi Nath & Sons And Ors.2, to submit that a disproportionate punishment, which shocks the conscience of the Court can be set aside in writ proceedings.

9. Ms. Ahlawat drew my attention to certain judgments, which also deal with the scope of challenge to quantum of punishment in disciplinary proceedings, on the ground of proportionality. Theprinciples have beensummarised in paragraph 19 of the judgment in Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh3,as under: “19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities. The courts cannot

19.2. disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. function assume

19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court.

19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case. 1