A.K.Singh v. The Union of India and Ors

order is therefore, disproportionate."

¶12In the present case, in view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for with the impugned order of reduction of pay by three stages from ` 8550+2400 to ` 7340+2000 in time scale of pay for a period of three years. The writ petition is consequently dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE)

DEEPA SHARMA (JUDGE) DECEMBER 01, 2015/rb

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decided on: 01.12.2015 + W.P.(C) 4237/2012 A.K.SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Ms.Garima Sachdeva, Adv. versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Rajesh Gogna, CGSC for R-1 to R-5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) C.M.No.28824/2015 In the interest of justice, the application is allowed. W.P.(C) 4237/2012 1. The petition is being heard with the consent of counsels for both the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order-dated 31.01.2011 whereby the penalty of reduction of pay by three stages from ` 8550+2400 to ` 7340+2000 in time scale of pay for a period of three years was ordered. It was directed that the petitioner would not earn any increment of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) as Constable on 25.03.1996. Whilst discharging his duties as Constable he was posted to the CISF unit, ASG, Kolkata on 10.09.2005. In relation to an incident, which occurred on 26.12.2009, the CISF issued a charge-sheet alleging misconduct by him. The charge was that one lady constable had complained on 31.12.2009 that the petitioner – on 26.12.2009 at 12.25 a.m., knocked on her door and tried to forcibly enter the room. He also allegedly made indecent suggestions, which amounted to sexual harassment. 4. The disciplinary authority had ordered an enquiry in the course of which the complainant and four other witnesses were examined. The complainant stuck to the version given by her in writing against the petitioner, alleging that he tried to make indecent suggestions to her. The other witnesses especially PW1, PW2, PW4 & PW5, though were not eye witnesses to the incident, stated that the petitioner tried to express remorse later and tried to apologize by even touching the complainant's feet. In the complaint, the complainant stated that the petitioner's wife expressed apologies on his behalf to her. The enquiry officer in his report felt that "…..The contention of the complainant appears to be quite weird and quite unbelievable because in a reply to a cross question by the alleged person, she herself has stated that her physiotherapist whose name is Rupa was present in her quarters during the time of incident. Any sane person who is aware that some other person/witness is present, would not dare to commit any such thing in front of that person who can testify against him as an eye witness. On the contrary, the alleged person has deposed in his statement during the course of enquiry that the complainant on 26.12.2009 at 0930 hrs pressed the call bell of his door and requested him to open the door. On opening of the door she requested either for gas cylinder or to allow her to prepare her food at his place. The contention of the charged person appears to be quite genuine. There is every possibility that the complainant might have approached the alleged person on that day for gas cylinder. However, whatever may be the reason, and keeping aside who has gone to whose quarters first, it cannot be ruled out that the charged person has misbehaved with the complainant and uttered sexually loaded language/words……" 5. The Inquiry officer concluded that the charged official i.e. the petitioner did misbehave and that the incident alleged by the complainant could not be ruled out. Based upon the findings, the disciplinary authority, after issuing show cause notice and furnishing the enquiry report imposed the penalty of withholding of one increment for one year without cumulative effect by an order dated 13.10.2010. While so, on 02.12.2010, the superior authority i.e. the Deputy Inspector General issued a suo motu show cause notice stating that the penalty was too lenient; the show cau