Delhi High Court
Nabin Kishor Chouhan vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 April, 2016
Author: Hima Kohli
Bench: Hima Kohli, Sunil Gaur
$~11.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2897/2016
NABIN KISHOR CHOUHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. G.D. Chotmurada, Advocate with
Mr. Rajender Kumar, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 01.04.2016
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for issuing directions to the respondents/SSB to suspend the sentence awarded against him on 19.11.2015, pending the appeal filed by him before the Appellate Authority on 11/13.02.2016 against the impugned order dated 19.11.2015 passed under Section 131 of the SSB Act. Further, the petitioner has prayed for issuing directions to the respondents to refrain from evicting his family from the government accommodation allotted to him, till the pendency of the appeal.
WP(C) 2897/2016 Page 1 of 4
2. This is the third round of litigation initiated by the petitioner on the same cause of action. Prior hereto, the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) 260/2016, for seeking suspension of the sentence imposed upon him vide order dated 19.11.2015, whereunder he was found guilty of the charge under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 43 of the SSB Act, 2007 and awarded a punishment of rigorous imprisonment for one year in civil prison and dismissal from service under Section 51(1)(b)(c) of the SSB Act, 2007. The aforesaid petition was, however, dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.01.2016 with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the respondent No.3/IG to seek suspension of the sentence, to enable him to file an appeal in terms of the SSB Act and Rules.
3. In less than one week from the date of passing of the aforesaid order, the petitioner had filed a second petition, registered as W.P.(C) 802/2016, assailing the order dated 06.01.2016 passed by the respondent No.2/Director General, SSB (Appellate Authority), rejecting his request for suspension of sentence. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 01.02.2016, holding inter alia that the petitioner would be entitled to obtain legal advise for drafting a statutory appeal for which the respondents were directed to WP(C) 2897/2016 Page 2 of 4 give access to the lawyer engaged by him in jail, while declining to suspend the sentence imposed upon him. The petitioner was also granted liberty to file a statutory appeal within the stipulated timeline and the respondents were directed that once the said appeal is filed, the same shall be considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law, and the decision taken shall be conveyed under written intimation to him.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed the statutory appeal on 11/12.02.2016, which is still awaiting a decision by the Appellate Authority. In the meantime, the respondents are insisting that the petitioner's family members that includes his wife and a one year old child, vacate the government accommodation allotted to him. He states that the family members of the petitioner may not be displaced from the government accommodation at least during the pendency of the appeal and requests that the petitioner's sentence be suspended pending a decision on the appeal.
5. We are not inclined to suspend the sentence of the petitioner pending the appeal, a position that was made clear while passing the order dated 01.02.2016 in the earlier writ petition filed by him. However, considering the fact that the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner has been pending for the past one and a half months, the respondents are directed to ensure that WP(C) 2897/2016 Page 3 of 4 the same is decided within two weeks from today under written intimation to him. Till the decision on the said appeal is conveyed to the petitioner, the respondents shall not take any coercive step to evict his family members from the government accommodation occupied by them at 41 st Bn. Ranidanga, West Bengal.
6. The petition is disposed of.
7. Needless to state that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision taken by the Appellate Authority, he shall be entitled to seek his remedies, if so advised, in accordance with law.
DASTI to the counsel for the respondents.
HIMA KOHLI, J SUNIL GAUR, J APRIL 01, 2016 rkb/ap WP(C) 2897/2016 Page 4 of 4