The man, aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, filed a petition against the order in May this year.The High Court, however, dismissed his plea. (Express photo: Ravi Kanojia/File)
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere in the case of penalty being imposed on a 39-year-old trial court stenographer held guilty of multiple counts of misconduct.
In 2010, the man was charged with taking a printout of a partially dictated judgment and handing it over to the litigant. He has also been charged with habitually being on leave.
The man, who works in the Office of the District and Sessions Judge in Tis Hazari Court, was placed under suspension from June 26, 2010 to October 6, 2012, and an inquiry was initiated into the allegations. During the course of inquiry, all witnesses, including the judicial officer concerned, maintained that he was indeed guilty of charges levelled against him. This led the inquiry officer to conclude that the man was guilty.
Following the charges, the disciplinary authority of a trial court in 2010 imposed penalty to withhold two increments with cumulative effect, which has thereafter reduced to withholding of one increment with cumulative effect by the Appellate Authority.
The man, aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, filed a petition against the order in May this year.
The High Court, however, dismissed his plea and said, “The court is of the opinion that in the overall circumstances of the case, the petitioner has been given lenient treatment. Interest of justice demands that the court should not interfere with the penalty imposed.” It also noted that the man enjoyed salary and allowances for the period he was under suspension.
Advocate Anku Chhibber, appearing for the District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court, said the punishment imposed on him was very less and no leniency should be shown to him. “The act done by him is very serious,” he said.
Advocate S S Sastry, who appeared for the man, urged that the imposition of penalty was excessive and withholding of one increment with cumulative effect will have an adverse impact on his future pay and allowances.