Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Dharmender Kumar vs State on 7 July, 2022

            IN THE COURT OF SH.RAMESH KUMAR,
           PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
         NORTH EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI


                                                     CR No. 17/22
                                       CIS No. DLNE01-000197-2022



In the matter of:

Dharmender Kumar
S/o Sh. Saut Ram
R/o B-18/274, Indira Camp,
Kalyanpuri, Delhi.                       ............ Revisionist


                             Versus


1. State, NCT of Delhi,
   Through its standing counsel.

and

2. Smt. Pratibha
   W/o Sh. Ravindra
   R/o A-133K, Gali no.4,
   Johripur Extension,
   Delhi-110094.                         .........Respondents



          Date of institution of case:              22.01.2022
          Date of hearing arguments:                07.07.2022
          Date of passing of judgment:              07.07.2022




CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, UNDER SECTION 397/399 OF



CR No.17/22             Dharmendra Kumar Vs. State & Ors.         Page 1/6
 Cr.P.C, AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER, DATED 19.01.2022,
PASSED BY THE COURT OF SH.ARUN KUMAR GARG, THE
THEN LD.CMM, (NORTH-EAST) DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA
COURT COMPLEX, DELHI, IN CT CASE NO.733/2019, TITLED AS
'PRATIBHA VS. SANJEEV TOMAR @ SANJEEV KUMAR'.


JUDGMENT:

1. The present is a judicial verdict, passed in revision petition, preferred by Dharmendra Kumar (hereinafter referred to as revisionist), against the impugned order, dated 19.01.2022, passed by the court of Sh. Arun Kumar Garg, the then ld. CMM, North­East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in case titled as "Pratibha Vs. Sanjeev Tomar @ Sanjeev Kumar", CT cases no.733/2019, PS Gokalpuri, whereby, the ld.Trial Court, directed issuance of warrant of attachment of the salary of the revisionist, to the extent of his basic pay for the month of January, 2022, in the name of Drawing and Disbursing Officer, North­East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, on account of alleged dereliction of duties, on the part of the revisionist.

2. It is stated, in the revision petition, that, the revisionist joined Delhi District Court, on 03.01.20211, as Record Keeper, in the Office of the ld. ACMM, North East, Karkardooma. It is further stated that he worked in the aforesaid office, till 2015, and, thereafter, after his promotion, he worked as Ahlmad, in the court of ld. CMM, North­East District, till February, 2022. It is further stated that, since, the day of joining, the revisionist is doing his duties with honesty, dignity, discipline and with utmost hardwork. It is further stated that, the revisionist, has always behaved well and has been polite with his Officers, colleagues and Advocates. It is further stated that, CR No.17/22 Dharmendra Kumar Vs. State & Ors. Page 2/6 the impugned order, is against the well settled principles of law. It is further stated that, the revisionist never indulged in any act of alleged misconduct.

3. I have heard ld. counsel for the revisionist as well as ld. Addl. P. P for the State, and, carefully perused the material placed on record.

4. The relevant portion of the impugned order, dated 19.01.2022, is reproduced herein below as under:­ ".....On 22.10.2021, an acknowledgement regarding deposit of PF in terms of order dated 31.08.2021 was produced by proxy counsel for the complainant and hence, after observing that purportedly a false report had been made by the Ahlmad on order dated 31.08.2021 regarding non filing of PF, he was directed to show cause within two days as to why a fine equal to one month's salary of the Ahlmad be not imposed upon him........

.....A perusal of record of the cases pending before this court reflects that a number of instances of gross misconduct and negligence in performances of his duties by the Ahlmad have also been noted and reported by the ld. Predecessor of this court to the ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, NE. Under the aforesaid circumstances, with a heavy heart, the court is constrained to impose a fine equal to one month's basic pay of the Ahlmad for the month of January, CR No.17/22 Dharmendra Kumar Vs. State & Ors. Page 3/6 2022 for the aforesaid acts of misconduct of the Ahlmad....

.... Issue warrant of attachment of the salary of the Ahlmad Dharmender Kumar to the extent of his basic pay for the month of January, 2022 in the name of the DDO, District Court ( North East ), KKD Courts, Delhi..."

5. It is argued by ld. counsel for the revisionist that, revisionist, is a well behaved, polite person and has never misbehaved or indulged in any kind of misconduct with any Officer, with whom he had worked, since, the joining of his service. It is further stated, that the revisionist, has worked with many Judicial Officers, and, not even a single Judicial Officer, ever reported any kind of misconduct, on the part of revisionist. It is further argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, as same is unjust, harsh and suffers from material irregularities.

6. It is further argued that, the power, vested with the Court of law, for calling explanation or imposing cost/fine on any public servant, should be exercised, sparingly. It is further argued that, if the initial order itself is wrong, and, not as per provisions of law, then, the entire order or proceedings, based on it, shall be against the settled principles of law. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the present revision petition be allowed and the impugned order, be set aside.

7. In this background, it is pertinent to rely on the judgment titled as State of Punjab Vs. Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors, wherein, it was held as under:

"72. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is CR No.17/22 Dharmendra Kumar Vs. State & Ors. Page 4/6 not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strike at the root of the order. In such a fact situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" meaning thereby that foundation being removed, structure/work falls comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case.

8. It is pertinent to note that, the revisionist, has worked with a number of Judicial Officers, earlier also, and, no complaint, regarding misconduct or dereliction of duties was reported against him. However, this court cannot lose sight of the fact that, bare perusal of impugned order reflects that, on a number of occasions, the revisionist faulted in discharge of his duties. Nevertheless, impostion of penalty, in the form of issuance of warrant of attachment of the salary of the revisionist, to the extent of his basic salary for the month of January, 2022, is harsh for the lapses, as reported in the impugned order.

9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and past conduct of the revisionist, the impugned order, dated 19.01.2022, is modified to the extent that direction for issuance of warrant of attachment of the salary of the revisionist, to the extent of his basic pay for the month of January, 2022, in the name of Drawing and Disbursing Officer, North­ East District, Karkardooma Courts, is set­aside. However, revisionist is warned to be careful in future and directed to remain diligent towards his duties. With these observation, present revisions petition is disposed of.

10. Copy of this judgment, along with Trial Court record, be sent back to ld.Trial Court, for information.

11. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.

                                         RAMESH         Date:
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN                    KUMAR          2022.07.07
COURT ON 7th JULY,                                      14:48:48
                                                        +0530
2022
                                (RAMESH KUMAR)
                    PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
                             NORTH EAST DISTRICT
                           KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI




CR No.17/22                Dharmendra Kumar Vs. State & Ors.               Page 6/6