WP(C) No.761/2005

Page 1 of 15

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

WP(C) No.761/2005

%

Date of Decision: 01.04.2011

Prahlad Singh

…. Petitioner

Through Mr. A.K.Behera, Advocate

Versus

UOI & Ors.

…. Respondents

Through Ms. Gayatri Verma, Advocate for UOI

Ms. Deepa Rai, Advocate for

respondent No.2

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

1.

Whether reporters of Local papers

may be allowed to see the judgment?

YES

2.

To be referred to the reporter or not?

NO

3.

Whether the judgment should be

reported in the Digest?

NO

ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22^nd April, 2004,

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New

Delhi in OA 2233/2003 titled as Prahlad Singh vs. UOI & Ors.

dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner against the

order dated 23^rd April, 2002 passed against him imposing the

penalty of compulsory retirement with reduction of pensionary

2011:DHC:1996-DB

WP(C) No.761/2005

Page 2 of 15

benefits to 1/3^rd of the family pension as well as modified appellate

order dated 16^th November, 2003 whereby along with compulsory

retirement the amount of gratuity had been reduced to 1/3^rd of the

normal amount to the petitioner.

2.

Brief relevant facts are that the petitioner was working as UDC

in NCERT and was deputed to participate in the RIE/NIE Annual

Sports Meet as a member of 18 members‟ Sports Team (including

Team Manager Sh. Suman Kujur and Assistant Team Manager Sh.

Benoy Banerjee) from NCERT Headquarter.

3. While en route to RIE, Ajmer by Ahmedabad Mail on 17^th

March, 2001, it was alleged that the petitioner consumed alcohol in

the train with Sh. Mahender Singh Dagar, Bearer from 10:30 PM to

1:30 PM and thereafter, abused the family members of Sh. Rakesh

Tiwari and other passengers who had been travelling in the same

compartment. He also threatened that he along with others would

kill Rakesh Tiwari‟s family members. The petitioner also allegedly

abused the women passengers in filthy and dirty language and even

tried to outrage their modesty. On account of his misbehavior and

using dirty and abusive language and trying to outrage the modesty

of women passengers, petitioner as well as Sh. Mohinder Singh

2011:DHC:1996-DB

WP(C) No.761/2005

Page 3 of 15

Dagar were arrested and detained by GRPF Police. They were

produced before the Court where they pleaded guilty.

4.

The respondents contended that on account of the acts of the

petitioner, it brought bad name and lowered the prestige of NCERT

and he behaved in a manner unbecoming of govt. servant.

5. The petitioner was, therefore, charged under Rule 14 of

CCS(CCA) Rules and common proceedings against him and against

Sh. Mohinder Singh Dagar were ordered under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA)

Rules, 1965 by order dated 4^th November, 2001. Prior to issuance of

charge sheet, the petitioner had been placed under suspension w.e.f.

21^st March, 2001. The specific charge against the petitioner was that

as a part of sports team going to Ajmer he got totally drunk in the

train and in the drunken state he used loud and abusive language

and misbehaved with fellow passengers. The complainant during the

inquiry had amplified the indecent remarks the petitioner had made

against his wife, mother in law in these words:-

“that he would fuck both of them in standing position”.

He also raised the slogan in Hindi

“Jab Tak Suraj Chand Rahega Jat Bable Ki Gand

Rahega”.

2011:DHC:1996-DB

WP(C) No.761/2005

Page 4 of 15

According to the respondent the abusive and dirty language to

the women passengers in the compartment amounted to outraging

their modesty. The petitioner was arrested by the GRPF Police and he

had pleaded guilty before the Magistrate.

6. During the inquiry, the petitioner though denied the charge,

however, did not file any regular defence statement enumerating his

s