MANOJ KUMAR vs HONBLE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HEAD QUARTERS

Judgment text excerpt

$~193 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on 08.01.2025 + W.P.(C) 10874/2022 MANOJ KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S.C. Singhal, Advocate for Mr. M.S. Rohilla, Advocate. versus HONBLE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HEAD QUARTERS .....Respondent Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, StandingCounsel (GNCTD) Services with Mr. NiteshKumar Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. AlizaAlam and Mr. MohnishSehrawat, Advocates. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL) 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 W.P.(C) 10874/2022 Page 1 of 7 Signing Date:10.01.2025 20:30:24 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