MANISH KUMAR SACHAR vs U.O.I & ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13864/2006 MANISH KUMAR SACHAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Ms. Rajul Jain, Ms. Rhea Verma and Ms. Poorvi Rewalia, Advs. versus U.O.I & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Balendu Shekhar, CGSC with Mr. Krishna Chaitanya and Mr. Rajkumar Maurya, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 02.05.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. The issue in controversy in this writ petition is as to whether the punishment of withholding of two increments in the time scale of pay for a period of two years without cumulative effect could be sustained. 2. Mr Ankur Chhibber, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has restricted his submission to the plea that the impugned order of punishment stands vitiated as it was issued on the basis of an advice received from the Union Public Service Commission1, no copy of which was provided to his client. 1 “UPSC” hereinafter Signature Not Verified Signed By:AAKANSHA W.P.(C) 13864/2006 Page 1 of 6 SHARMA Signing Date:19.05.2025 11:14:13 3. We have heard learned Counsel on this issue at some length. 4. Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UOI v R.P. Singh2 whereas Mr. Balendu Shekhar, learned CGSC placed reliance on the decision in UOI v T.V. Patel3. Thereafter, Mr. Ankur Chhibber pointed out that prior to the decision in T.V. Patel, the principle in R.P. Singh had earlier been enunciated in S.N. Narula v UOI4. As such, applying the law laid down in para 35 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union Territory of Ladakh v Jammu and Kashmir National Conference5, the decision in S.N. Narula would have precedence. 5. We have dealt with an identical issu