IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on:12.10.2022

+

W.P.(C) 8738/2019

SUNIL KUMAR SAINI

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Shekhar Kumar, Mr. Aman

Bhalla and Mr. Aman Tehlan, Advs.

versus

THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE ..... Respondent

Through:

Mrs.

Avnish

Ahlawat,

Standing

Counsel for DSJ along with Mr.

Nitesh Kumar Singh, Mrs. Tania

Ahlawat, Mrs. Palak Rohmetra, Ms.

Laavanya Kaushik and Ms. Aliza

Alam, Advs.

+

W.P.(C) 8896/2019

TARUN KUMAR

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj and Ms. Jagrati

Singh, Advs.

versus

HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Rajat Aneja and Ms. Aditi

Shastri, Advs. for Delhi High Court

Mrs.

Avnish

Ahlawat,

Standing

Counsel for DSJ along with Mr.

Nitesh Kumar Singh, Mrs. Tania

Ahlawat, Mrs. Palak Rohmetra, Ms.

Laavanya Kaushik and Ms. Aliza

Alam, Advocates for R2

CORAM

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004197

JUDGMENT

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

1.

Being aggrieved by the Impugned order dated 17.02.2018,

passed by Shri Talwant Singh, District and Sessions Judge (HQ),

Delhi, imposing a penalty of dismissal from service, the present writ

petitions are filed by the petitioners.

Brief facts

2.

Since the petitioners in both the writ petitions, that is W.P. (C)

8896/2019 and W.P.(C) 8738/2019 were dismissed by a common

dismissal order, the present common judgment is being passed.

3.

Petitioner, Sunil Kumar Saini, was initially appointed as Lower

Division Clerk (LDC)/Junior Judicial Assistant (JJA) in the office of

the District and Sessions Judge (HQ), Delhi on 13.03.1997 and at that

relevant time, was discharging his duty as a Reader in the court of Shri

Dinesh Kumar, the then learned M.M.-04(Traffic), South Saket

Courts, Delhi.

4.

The petitioner, Tarun Kumar, was initially appointed as Peon/

Ahlmad in the office of the District and Sessions Judge (HQ), Delhi

on 22.12.2008 and at the relevant time was posted as Assistant

Ahlmad in the court of Shri Dinesh Kumar, the then learned M.M.-

04(Traffic), South Saket Courts, Delhi.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004197

5.

The controversy in the present case relates to issuance of forged

orders under the signature of the learned MM. The learned MM was

discharging his duties in relations to the offences falling under the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as “MV Act”) for the

South District, New Delhi. Section 66 of the MV Act defines an

offence of permit violation committed by a vehicle and its owner/

driver. The punishment for the offence is provided under Section

192A of the MV Act. The Act empowers the traffic police to impound

and suspend the permit of such vehicle if it is found to have

committed an offence under Section 66 read with Section 192A of the

MV Act.

6.

Section 192A of the MV Act provides that whoever drives a

motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in

contravention of provisions of Section 66, shall be punishable for the

first offence with a fine which may extend to ₹5,000/- but shall not be

less than ₹2,000/- and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment

which may extend to one year but shall not be less than three months

or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees but shall not be

less than five thousand rupees or with both.

7.

The concerned Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, however, has

been given a power to acquit the person or to impose a lesser

punishment. The challans issued by the Traffic police are sent to the

concerned Metropolitan Magistrate of the area and are disposed by a

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004197

summary trial procedure by maintaining the records of proceedings in

Summary Trial Register (hereinafter referred as “STR”).

8.

In case the accused is convicted for the