{"id":68945,"date":"2011-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011"},"modified":"2017-09-17T05:56:12","modified_gmt":"2017-09-17T00:26:12","slug":"kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Kishor Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 4 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Kishor Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 4 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog<\/div>\n
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                     Judgment Reserved on: March 30, 2011\n                      Judgment Delivered on: April 04, 2011\n\n+                           WP(C) 5991\/2010\n\n        KISHOR KUMAR                       ..... Petitioner\n                 Through:       Mr.Karan Singh Bhati, Mr.Rajneesh\n                                Bhaskar and Ms.Jyoti Upadhyay,\n                                Advocates\n\n                                versus\n\n        UOI & ORS.                             .....Respondents\n                  Through:      Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate\n\n\n         CORAM:\n         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG\n         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT\n\n     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed\n        to see the judgment?\n     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?\n     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\nPRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.      Vide memorandum dated 23.05.2009 the petitioner was
\nserved with a charge sheet consisting of 2 charges; the 3rd
\ncharge simply indicated to the petitioner that as per his
\nservice book, in the past, he was levied 1 major and 7 minor
\npenalties which evidenced his being a habitual offender. It is
\napparent that the so-called 3rd charge was in fact an intimation
\nto the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority would be
\nconsidering the past service record of the petitioner, should he<\/p>\n
     W.P.(C) No.5991\/2010                                Page 1 of 15<\/span>
\n be found guilty of the first 2 charges listed against him. The 3
\ncharges read as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                          “Charge No.1<\/p>\n
      The wife of Force No.882160085 Constable Kishor
\n      Kumar P.T.P.S Panki (Uttar Pradesh) Smt.Tara Devi
\n      was found was found by the side of road in
\n      unconscious condition in front of gate No. at 15:00
\n      hrs. On 04.04.2009 who had consumed poisonous
\n      substance who was taken to P.T.P.S. Panki Hospital
\n      by the common people and the members of Force.
\n      By the advice of doctor again admitted in Rajaram
\n      Hospital and constable Kishor Kumar was
\n      immediately informed.       When Constable Kishor
\n      Kumar reached Rajaram Hospital then he started
\n      addressing and using un-parliamentary language
\n      and threatened to kill Assistant Commandant Sri
\n      Mani Ram and threatened to kill Assistant
\n      Commandant Sri Mani Ram and Inspector\/Work
\n      S.P.Tripathi who were getting the treatment of his
\n      wife done.     This act of Kishor Kumar is gross
\n      misbehavior, condemnable, unwanted and is
\n      indiscipline. Therefore, this charge.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                          Charge No.2<\/p>\n
      “The wife of Force No.882160085 Constable Kishor
\n      Kumar P.T.P.S Panki (Uttar Pradesh) Smt.Tara Devi
\n      was found by the side of road in unconscious
\n      condition in front of gate No. at 15:00 hrs. On
\n      04.04.2009     who    had    consumed      poisonous
\n      substance who was taken to P.T.P.S Panki Hospital
\n      by the common people and the members of Force.
\n      Due to humanity, sympathy and belongingness’
\n      Inspector\/Work S.P.Tripathi reached to Rajaram
\n      Hospital after taking `5,000\/- on credit so that the
\n      treatment of wife of Kishor Kumar could be done
\n      very nicely. After receiving the information as soon
\n      Constable Kishor Kumar reached in the premise of
\n      Rajaram Hospital, without any reason and under a
\n      planned manner misbehaves with Assistant
\n      Commandant and Inspector, used un-parliamentary
\n      language and created nuisance in public place
\n   W.P.(C) No.5991\/2010                                Page 2 of 15<\/span>
\n         which tarnished the image of Force. This act of
\n        Kishor Kumar is gross misbehavior, condemnable,
\n        unwanted and is indiscipline.     Therefore, the
\n        charge.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             Charge No.3<\/p>\n
        According to the service book and documents of
\n        Force No.882160085 Constable Kishor Kumar
\n        C.I.S.F Unit P.T.P.S Panki (Uttar Pradesh), during his
\n        service he has been awarded under C.I.S.F Rule, 01
\n        major punishment and 07 minor punishments for
\n        the various indiscipline behaviors.       Thus, Force
\n        No.882160085 Constable Kishor Kumar is habitual
\n        of dereliction in duty, irresponsibility, misbehavior
\n        and gross indiscipline. Therefore, this charge.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2.      The petitioner submitted his reply on 6.6.2009 and in our
\nopinion it would be appropriate if the defence taken by the
\npetitioner is noted inasmuch as it would help focusing upon
\nthe rival viewpoints debated at the bar during hearing of the
\nwrit petition.\n<\/p>\n
3.      Not denying that on 4.4.2009 his wife was admitted at
\nP.T.P.S.Panki Hospital and thereafter at Raja Ram Hospital, the
\npetitioner denied having used any un-parliamentary language
\nor having threatened to kill Asst.Commandant Sh.Mani Ram
\nand Insp. (Works) S.P.Tripathi at the hospital.         He denied
\ncreating nuisance in a public place which tarnished the image
\nof the force.        He stated that his wife had consumed some
\npoisonous substance and since her life was in danger, the
\npetitioner’s attention was completely devoted on saving the
\nlife of his wife. With reference to the list of witnesses through
\nwhose mouth the department intended to prove the charges,
\npetitioner stated that it was unexplainable as to why no public
\nperson i.e. a doctor, a nurse or an employee of the hospital
\n     W.P.(C) No.5991\/2010                                  Page 3 of 15<\/span>
\n was cited as a witness. Therefrom, petitioner sought to urge
\nthat it was apparently a case of no evidence against him.
\nPetitioner took a technical plea of the charge being vague
\ninasmuch as the so-called un-parliamentary words stated to
\nhave been used by him were not specified in the charge. It
\nmay be highlighted that the petitioner did not deny that on
\n4.4.2009 Asstt.Commandant Sh.Mani Ram and Insp. (Works)
\nSh.S.P.Tripathi visited the hospital.\n<\/p>\n
4.      Insp.(Works) Begraj was detailed as the Inquiry Officer
\nwho commenced recording evidence in presence of the
\npetitioner      and         since   he   got   transferred   Insp.(Works)
\nC.M.Shukla replaced him as the Inquiry Officer.\n<\/p>\n
5.      10 prosecution witnesses were examined to prove the
\ncharges against the petitioner and 1 court witness was
\nexamined by the Inquiry Officer for the purpose of proving the
\n3rd charge i.e. the charge pertaining to the character i.e.
\nprevious service record of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
6.      HC(Fire) N.Dhawas PW-1 deposed that on 4.4.2009 at
\n15:00 hours while on his way to gate No.2 he saw a crowd
\nstanding near the road adjacent to gate No.2, watching a lady
\nlying on the road. On reaching the spot he realized that the
\nwoman lying unconscious was the wife of the petitioner. After
\nremoving the lady to P.T.P.S.Hospital with the help of other
\npersons he returned to gate No.2 where he reported the
\nincident to Assistant Sub-Insp.Kadam Singh and returned back
\nto the hospital. At P.T.P.S.Hospital he was informed that the
\nlady was to be taken to Raja Ram Hospital for further
\ntreatment and thus he took her to Raja Ram Hospital with the
\nhelp of Ct.Darshan Kumar PW-3 whom he picked up from gate<\/p>\n
     W.P.(C) No.5991\/2010                                       Page 4 of 15<\/span>
\n No.2 on his way. That Asst.Commandant Mani Ram PW-8 and
\nInsp.(Works) S.P.Tripathi PW-9 also arrived at the hospital.
\nThat soon thereafter the petitioner arrived at the hospital and
\nwithout making any enquiries about the incident, the petitioner
\nstarted shouting about his wife being brought to the hospital
\nand hurled abuses. That when the persons present at the
\nhospital tried to calm him down, he started abusing the
\nAsst.Commandant               Mani    Ram    (PW-8)      and     Insp.(Works)
\nS.P.Tripathi (PW-9) and threatened to kill them. That the
\npetitioner continued to shout and use un-parliamentary
\nlanguage and that seeing the situation get out of control he
\ni.e. PW-1 and other officers returned to the unit lines.\n<\/p>\n
7.      HC(Fire) Avtar Singh PW-2 deposed that on 04.04.2009
\nhe accompanied PW-1 and took petitioner’s wife to the P.T.P.S
\nhospital and corroborated PW-1 in regards to the events
\nthereafter.       He        additionally   stated     that    the      petitioner
\nthreatened to kill Asst.Commandant Mani Ram (PW-8) and
\nInsp.(Works) S.P.Tripathi (PW-9) and said that tonight will be
\ntheir last night. That to stop the petitioner from shouting, he
\nwas taken to the emergency ward to see his wife.\n<\/p>\n
8.      Ct.(Works) Darshan Kumar, PW-3 deposed that on
\n04.04.2009 he accompanied PW-1 and PW-2 when they took
\npetitioner’s wife to Raja Ram Hospital where she was referred
\nfor further treatment by the P.T.P.S. Hospital and that on the
\nway information regarding the same was given to Sub-
\nInspector(Works) Rajkumar (PW-4) over the phone.                                He
\ncorroborated PW-1 and PW-2 in regards to the events that
\nfollowed.        He     additionally        stated     that     apart        from
\nAsstt.Commandant              Mani   Ram     (PW-8)    and     Insp.     (Works)<\/p>\n
     W.P.(C) No.5991\/2010                                               Page 5 of 15<\/span>
\n S.P.Tripathi (PW-9), amongst the force personnel who reached
\nthe hospital there was Sub Inspector Rajkumar (PW-4), HC
\nYogendra Singh (PW-7), HC (DCPO) Beant Singh (PW-5) and
\nLady Ct. Sheetal Shepre (PW-10). That petitioner on reaching
\nthe hospital without enquiry started shouting in high pitch as
\nto how his wife who was sleeping with him in the house
\nreached the hospital. That petitioner hurled abuses at Asstt.
\nCommandant Mani Ram (PW-8) and Insp. (Work) S.P.Tripathi
\n(PW-9) and threatened to kill them by saying that today is their
\nlast day. That since the situation was not coming under control
\nand petitioner continued to shout using un-parliamentary
\nlanguage. He i.e. PW-3 along with other officers returned to
\nthe unit lines.\n<\/p>\n
9.      Asstt.Sub-Inspector(Works) Rajkumar PW-4, deposed that
\non 04.04.09 at 15:15 hours he received information over the
\ntelephone from Ct.Darshan Kumar (PW-3) that the wife of the
\npetitioner was found lying unconscious on the road outside the
\nplant he conveyed the said information to HC(DCPO) Beant
\nSingh (PW-5) with a request to take a jeep to the hospital but
\nbefore the jeep could leave he received another message from
\nCt.Darshan Kumar that the lady was being removed to Raja
\nRam Hospital and therefore along with HC Beant Singh, HC
\nJoginder Singh, Ct.Shital Shepra (PW-10) he reached Raja Ram
\nHospital from where he gave information over the telephone to
\nAsstt.Cmdt.Mani             Ram   and   Insp.(Works)   S.P.Tripathi   who
\narrived at Raja Ram Hospital.             He deposed further facts as
\nstated by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 as to what happened at the
\nhospital when said two officers reached.\n<\/p>\n
     W.P.(C) No.5991\/2010                                       Page 6 of 15<\/span><\/p>\n
 10.   HC Beant Singh PW-5 and HC Kapur Singh PW-6
\ncorroborated PW-4.        HC Yogender Singh PW-7 corroborated
\nPW-4 of going to the hospital but gave no further testimony
\nstating that he was not present when the petitioner reached
\nthe hospital.\n<\/p>\n
11.    Asstt. Commandant Mani Ram (PW-8) and Insp. (Work)
\nS.P.Tripathi (PW-9) deposed that on receiving information
\nabout the petitioner’s wife being hospitalized they took `5000
\nfrom the canteen and reached Raja Ram Hospital. That the
\npetitioner on reaching the hospital, without making any
\nenquiry started hurling abuses and shouted about his wife
\nbeing brought to the hospital. When the force personnel tried
\nto calm him down, the petitioner started abusing PW-8 and
\nPW-9 and threatened to kill them for conspiring against him.\n<\/p>\n
12.   Lady Ct.Sheetal Shepre PW-10 corroborated PW-4 in
\nregard to her role assigned by him i.e PW-4 and deposed that
\nsoon after seeing the condition of the patient she had gone
\nback to the lines and had thus not witnessed petitioner’s
\nconduct.\n<\/p>\n
13.   Asstt.Sub-Insp.(Clerk)    K.P.Rao   CW-1    produced       a
\ndocument Ex.1 consisting of a list of punishments awarded to
\npetitioner throughout his service.\n<\/p>\n
14.   Relevant would it be to note that the petitioner was given
\nfull opportunity to cross-examine all the witnesses and nothing
\nwas shown to us with reference to the cross-examination
\nconducted which would discredit the said witnesses. It is thus
\napparent that there is sufficient evidence to indict the
\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n
   W.P.(C) No.5991\/2010                                Page 7 of 15<\/span><\/p>\n
 15.   During inquiry the petitioner produced a letter written by
\na doctor from Raja Ram Hospital as per which no such incident
\nas alleged had taken place in the hospital but expressed his
\ninability to produce the doctor concerned as a witness to prove
\nthe letter stating that the doctor concerned i.e. Dr.Vinay
\nVerma cannot come i.e. would not appear before the Inquiry
\nOfficer.\n<\/p>\n
16.   The Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 19.10.2009
\nholding petitioner guilty of the charges. Supplying a copy of
\nthe inquiry report to the petitioner for his response and
\nconsidering the same the Disciplinary Authority inflicted the
\npenalty of removal from service vide order dated 27.10.2009
\nagainst which appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected vide
\norder dated 8.2.2010. The petitioner filed, what he claims to
\nbe a second appeal as pleaded in the writ petition, which was
\ntreated as a revision petition, as pleaded in the counter
\naffidavit filed; which revision petition was dismissed vide order
\ndated 13.7.2010. We note that as pleaded by the petitioner in
\nthe writ petition he claims that his second appeal i.e. the
\nrevision petition was not decided, but with the counter
\naffidavit filed, copy of the order dated 13.7.2010 has been
\nannexed and notwithstanding petitioner not having amended
\nthe writ petition to challenge the same, cutting through the
\ntechnicalities of procedural law, we considered arguments with
\nreference to, as if, even the revisional order is under
\nchallenge.\n<\/p>\n
17.   The first and foremost contention urged by learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner was that the charges pertained to
\nstated acts committed by the petitioner in Raja Ram Hospital<\/p>\n
   W.P.(C) No.5991\/2010                                 Page 8 of 15<\/span>
\n i.e. a public place and for the reason no independent witness
\nwas examined it has to be held that the indictment is
\ncontrived.\n<\/p>\n
18.   We are not dealing with a criminal trial where the penalty
\ncould attract a sentence of imprisonment and thus the
\nprinciple of law that where independent public witnesses are
\navailable their non-association in the investigation may taint
\nthe purity of the investigation is not applicable in the instant
\ncase because the instant case pertains to a domestic inquiry.\n<\/p>\n
19.   Conscious of the fact that the plea of not examining
\nhospital staff or a public person would not cut much ice unless
\nthe petitioner could show a motive for Asst. Commandant Mani
\nRam and Insp. (Works) S.P.Tripathi to falsely implicate the
\npetitioner, an attempt has been made to show that the two
\nhad a motive to do so.\n<\/p>\n
20.   It is pleaded in para 4(iv) of the writ petition that the
\npetitioner and his wife were going through a tough time and
\nbecause of false rumours pertaining to illicit relationship of his
\nwife with senior officers, petitioner was mentally upset and
\nwas under heavy stress.       From these vague and inchoate
\npleadings, where nothing specific is alleged against Asst.
\nCommandant Mani Ram and Insp.(Works) S.P.Tripathi, learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner sought to urge that the senior
\nofficers were Asst. Commandant Mani Ram and Insp. (Works)
\nS.P.Tripathi. Needless to state the respondents have denied
\nthat there were any rumours pertaining to petitioner’s wife
\nhaving illicit relationship with any or more than one senior
\nofficer of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
   W.P.(C) No.5991\/2010                                  Page 9 of 15<\/span><\/p>\n
 21.   Admittedly, petitioner never made any complaint in
\nwriting or otherwise to any superior officer that defamatory
\nrumours were being spread about his wife of having illicit
\nrelationship with senior officers. The petitioner has not even
\nspecifically pleaded that the rumours pertaining to illicit
\nrelationship of his wife linked her to Asst. Commandant Mani
\nRam and\/or Insp. (Works) S.P.Tripathi. Thus, the plea of mala
\nfide, being weak, inchoate and without any material particulars
\nis rejected.\n<\/p>\n
22.   We have briefly noted hereinabove the testimony of the
\n10 witnesses examined during inquiry and suffice would it be
\nto state that their testimony leaves hardly any scope for a
\ndebate on the indictment held proved.\n<\/p>\n
23.   Reverting back once again to the plea of malice, with
\nreference to the evidence led, it is apparent that all the senior
\nofficers and the colleagues of the petitioner rallied around him
\nto save his wife who had consumed poison i.e. had attempted
\na suicide.     Asst. Commandant Mani Ram and Insp. (Works)
\nS.P.Tripathi even took the trouble of borrowing `5,000\/- from
\nthe Unit canteen when they learnt that petitioner’s wife had to
\nbe taken to a private hospital i.e. Raja Ram Hospital as their
\ninstinct rightly told them that the management of the private
\nhospital may require some money to be deposited.                   The
\nmanner in which the colleagues and the senior officers of the
\npetitioner have rallied around him at the hour of crises totally
\ndemolishes the feeble theory of mala fide sought to be spun by
\nthe petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
24.   The next plea urged was that the Inquiry Officer, the
\nDisciplinary     Authority,   the   Appellate   Authority   and     the<\/p>\n
  W.P.(C) No.5991\/2010                                      Page 10 of 15<\/span>
\n Revisional Authority have unjustifiably not considered the
\nletter produced by the petitioner and as written by Dr.Vinay
\nVerma of Raja Ram Hospital, contents whereof negated any
\nincident taking place at Raja Ram Hospital, as alleged against
\nthe petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
25.   We have noted hereinabove that while producing the
\nletter before the Inquiry Officer the petitioner stated that
\nDr.Vinay Verma had refused to appear before the Inquiry
\nOfficer.    Now, the letter had to be proved through the
\ntestimony of its author, who was available.            Dr.Vinay Verma
\nrefusing to appear before the Inquiry Officer is indicative of his
\nlack of courage to depose and support the contents of his
\nletter. Alternatively, who knows, whether at all the letter was
\nat all written by Dr.Vinay Verma.\n<\/p>\n
26.   That apart, we have already concluded hereinabove that
\nthere is no motive for Asst. Commandant Mani Ram and Insp.
\n(Works) S.P.Tripathi to contrive a version against the petitioner
\nand it would be hard to believe that the colleagues of the
\npetitioner, who have corroborated the said two persons, would
\njoin in a contrived action against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
27.   The    last    plea   urged   was   that   the    incident   itself
\nestablishes a severe stress and trauma under which the
\npetitioner had his mental faculties disabled. It was urged that
\nadmittedly, the wife of the petitioner had consumed poison
\nand had nearly succeeded in her mission to commit suicide.
\nAs a husband, it would be a natural reaction for the petitioner
\nto lose his composure. Counsel submitted that, if not rumours
\nthat his wife was having illicit relationship with senior officers,
\nthere had to be something, which unfortunately had not<\/p>\n
  W.P.(C) No.5991\/2010                                       Page 11 of 15<\/span>
\n surfaced, which was troubling the mind of the petitioner and
\nthat something had to do with something in the Unit
\nconcerned for only this circumstance would explain the
\nunnatural and unbecoming conduct of the petitioner. Counsel
\nwould    urge     that   why   should   the   petitioner   use     un-
\nparliamentary language against his senior officers and utter
\nutterances to kill them, when the senior officers had reached
\nto not only comfort the petitioner but additionally extend a
\nhelping hand to him and his wife? Finding a possible answer to
\nthe aforenoted question, counsel concluded by submitting that
\nit is obviously a case where the petitioner came under extreme
\nmental stress, as indeed any husband would, whose wife
\nattempts to commit suicide and in the backdrop of the
\npossibility of there being a rumour mill working overtime in the
\nUnit lines, may be a gossip or innuendos, concerning his wife
\nand these gossips or innuendos became the inflammatory
\nmaterial and lit the fire in the mind of the petitioner when his
\nwife attempted to commit suicide, and the resultant stress
\novertook the free thinking of the petitioner i.e. acted as a
\nprovocation to make him lose his cool and thus it has to be a
\ncase of the petitioner not being saddled with the liability of an
\nintentional act, but saddled with the liability of not being able
\nto control his emotions, thereby rendering the penalty
\ndisproportionate.\n<\/p>\n
28.   The argument is interesting and needs a discussion.\n<\/p>\n
29.   Killing of a man by a man under a grave provocation
\nreduces the gravity of the offence from murder to that of
\nculpable homicide not amounting to murder on the logic and
\nthe reasoning that the former is intentional i.e. the offending<\/p>\n
  W.P.(C) No.5991\/2010                                     Page 12 of 15<\/span>
\n act is linked to a positive state of mind to commit the act and
\nthe latter is not the result of a positive state of mind to commit
\nthe act, but is the result of a temporary loss of self control; not
\nthat the act complained of is not an offence, but the gravity
\nthereof is lower.\n<\/p>\n
30.   Indeed, this distinction has not been kept in mind by the
\nauthorities concerned for the obvious reason nobody drew
\ntheir attention to said distinction. Neither in the response to
\nthe report of the Inquiry Officer, nor in the appeal, nor in the
\nrevision has said point been raised.\n<\/p>\n
31.   An intentional and willful conduct is qualitatively different
\nthan an act of indiscretion and more so when the indiscretion
\nis the result of a person being overwhelmed by circumstances
\nbeyond his control.\n<\/p>\n
32.   The facts of the case probablize that the petitioner was
\noverwhelmed by circumstances beyond his control and in the
\nmoment of stress and distress when he saw his wife struggling
\nfor life, having consumed poison to take her life, losing self
\ncontrol, the petitioner went into a tirade and spoke all and
\nsundry, little realizing that his ill conceived tirade was
\nmisdirected      against   those   who   had   assembled     as    his
\nsympathizer to not only console him but extend a helping hand
\nto his wife who was struggling for her life.\n<\/p>\n
33.   It is true that in the past, the petitioner was levied 1
\nmajor and 7 minor penalties, but the nature thereof have not
\nbeen brought out in either order or the pleadings before us.
\nWhether any moral turpitude or insubordination was an
\nelement thereof is not known.\n<\/p>\n
  W.P.(C) No.5991\/2010                                     Page 13 of 15<\/span><\/p>\n
 34.   It is apparent that on the issue of the quantum of penalty
\nto be levied, since the attention of the authorities was not
\ndrawn to the distinctive facts which emerged and as noted and
\nopined by us in paras 29 to 32 above, which are certainly
\nrelevant on the issue of the quantum of penalty to be levied,
\nand law being clear that where an authority misdirects itself in
\nlaw or ignores a relevant fact or a relevant circumstance, the
\ndecision would be vitiated in law, the matter needs a remand
\nfor a consideration on the quantum of penalty to be levied
\nupon the petitioner and for which we set aside the revisional
\norder dated 13.7.2010 with a direction to the Revisional
\nAuthority to reconsider and re-decide the revision petition filed
\nby the petitioner and while so doing to take into account paras
\n29 to 32 of the instant decision and in light thereof have a re-
\nlook at the attendant circumstances under which the petitioner
\ncommitted the misdemeanour.            Since the nature of the
\nprevious penalties with respect to the nature of the charge and
\nthe findings have not been shown to us and therefore we have
\nnot commented thereon, it would be permissible for the
\nRevisional     Authority   to   take   the   said   penalties    into
\nconsideration and with reference to the nature of the
\nindictment in the past; giving reasons in support of the
\nquantum of penalty levied, the Revisional Authority would levy
\nan appropriate penalty.     Needless to state the merits of the
\nindictment need not be dealt with by the Disciplinary Authority
\ni.e. the indiscretion of the petitioner would be treated as
\nestablished and the only reasons required to be given by the
\nRevisional Authority would pertain to the quantum of the
\npunishment.\n<\/p>\n
  W.P.(C) No.5991\/2010                                    Page 14 of 15<\/span><\/p>\n
 35.   The Revisional Authority would pass a reasoned order on
\nthe quantum of penalty within 90 days of receipt of a certified
\ncopy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
36.   Petition stands disposed of in terms of paras 34 and 35
\nabove.\n<\/p>\n
37.   No costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                  (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
\n                                         JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                     (SURESH KAIT)
\n                                          JUDGE
\nAPRIL 04, 2011
\nmm<\/p>\n
  W.P.(C) No.5991\/2010                               Page 15 of 15<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Kishor Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 4 April, 2011 Author: Pradeep Nandrajog * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: March 30, 2011 Judgment Delivered on: April 04, 2011 + WP(C) 5991\/2010 KISHOR KUMAR ….. Petitioner Through: Mr.Karan Singh Bhati, Mr.Rajneesh Bhaskar and Ms.Jyoti Upadhyay, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-68945","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKishor Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 4 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kishor Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 4 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-17T00:26:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kishor Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 4 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-17T00:26:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3797,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Kishor Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 4 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-17T00:26:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kishor Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 4 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kishor Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 4 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kishor Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 4 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-17T00:26:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kishor Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 4 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-17T00:26:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011"},"wordCount":3797,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011","name":"Kishor Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 4 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-17T00:26:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-kumar-vs-uoi-ors-on-4-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kishor Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 4 April, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68945","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=68945"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68945\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68945"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68945"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68945"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}