Disciplinary Upholds Action Against RPF Officer For Failing To Prevent Theft: Delhi High Court

"Despite being entrusted with the safety of public property, the petitioner displayed lethargy and irresponsibility, failing to prevent theft even after prior disciplinary action. Judicial interference is unwarranted unless punishment is proven arbitrary or unconscionable," held the Delhi High Court.

Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Babrey Singh, a member of the Railway Protection Force (RPF), challenging disciplinary action imposed on him for failing to prevent the theft of overhead electric wires while on duty. The Court, comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur, upheld the findings of the Disciplinary, Appellate, and Revisional Authorities and confirmed the reduced penalty of a two-stage pay reduction for three years with cumulative effect, observing that the punishment was proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.

"Disciplinary Findings Well-Reasoned and Supported by Evidence"

The incident occurred on the night of July 26-27, 2014, when 150 meters of overhead electric (OHE) wire were stolen from a 3-kilometer stretch between Pilakhua and Dasna in Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner, assigned to OHE security for that area, was found negligent as the theft occurred on his watch.

The Disciplinary Authority found the petitioner guilty of gross dereliction of duty and imposed a penalty of reducing his pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect. Both the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority upheld the punishment. The petitioner contended that the punishment was disproportionate and that it was impossible for him to monitor the entire 3-kilometer stretch simultaneously.

"Judicial Review of Disciplinary Actions Limited to Arbitrariness or Proportionality"

The High Court emphasized its limited role in interfering with disciplinary actions, particularly when findings of fact are based on evidence. The Court reiterated:

"We are not sitting as an Appellate Court over the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. Judicial review in such cases is restricted to instances where the findings are arbitrary, perverse, or where the punishment is unconscionably disproportionate to the misconduct."

The Court found no infirmity in the disciplinary findings and noted that the petitioner had failed to prevent the theft despite being entrusted with a limited 3-kilometer stretch. The theft at 12 different locations within that stretch clearly indicated a lack of vigilance on the petitioner’s part. The Court observed:
"While the petitioner may not have been able to patrol the entire stretch simultaneously, the extent and manner of the theft, conducted at multiple locations, reveal gross negligence and failure in performing his duty."

"Repeat Misconduct Warrants Strict Punishment"

The Appellate Authority’s reasoning, which factored in the petitioner’s past record, played a significant role in the Court’s decision to uphold the penalty.

The Court noted that only three months prior to the theft, the petitioner had been penalized for a similar instance of dereliction of duty. In that earlier instance, his pay had been reduced by two stages for two years without cumulative effect. Despite this prior warning, the petitioner failed to improve his conduct.

The Appellate Authority, in its February 25, 2019 order, emphasized:
"The previous punishment did not bring any improvement in his attitude towards duty. Within three months of being penalized for a similar incident, the petitioner repeated the same negligence. Such lethargy and irresponsibility reflect poorly on his commitment to duty."

In light of these factors, the Appellate Authority reduced the penalty from the original three-stage pay reduction to a two-stage reduction for three years with cumulative effect, considering it sufficient to deter future misconduct while being proportionate to the gravity of the offense.

"Punishment Proportionate to the Misconduct"

On the issue of proportionality, the Court observed:
"Punishment imposed by disciplinary authorities can be interfered with only if it is unconscionably disproportionate to the gravity of the offense. In the present case, considering the petitioner’s past conduct and the repeated nature of the misconduct, the punishment cannot be termed as excessive or harsh."

The Court further held that the petitioner’s argument—that monitoring a 3-kilometer stretch was unfeasible—was not a valid defense, as his role as an RPF officer required due diligence to prevent such incidents.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Appellate Authority’s decision, confirming the penalty of a two-stage pay reduction for three years with cumulative effect. The Court concluded that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly, and the findings were well-reasoned and based on substantial evidence.

The ruling underscores the limited scope of judicial intervention in disciplinary matters and reinforces the principle that punishment must be proportionate to misconduct while deterring similar lapses in duty.

Date of Decision: January 7, 2025