Didn't Mend Ways, Remained Lethargic and Irresponsible: Delhi HC Upholds Punishment Of Employee For Repeated Mistake
The Delhi High Court was considering a Writ-Petition challenging order passed by Disciplinary Authority reducing salary of the Petitioner by three stages for three years with cumulative effect as punishment for repeated mistake.

The Delhi High Court while upholding the punishment granted to an employee in the form of reduction of salary for repeated mistake observed that the same is not disproportionate as he didn't mend ways and remained lethargic and irresposible even after getting punished earlier.
The Court was considering a Writ-Petition challenging order passed by Disciplinary Authority reducing salary of the Petitioner by three stages for three years with cumulative effect as punishment for repeated mistake.
The division-bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur observed,".....In spite of the punishment and only around three months thereafter, in the present case, he was again found negligent of the same offence. The Appellant Authority, therefore, came to the opinion that in spite of the imposition of the punishment in the earlier instance, the petitioner has not changed or mended his ways and has remained lethargic and irresponsible on duty. Despite the same, the Appellant Authority reduced the punishment awarded to the petitioner for the present incident to now to be lowering of his pay by two stages for three years with cumulative effect in the existing scale of pay......Given the above facts, we do not find the punishment awarded to the petitioner to be disproportionate and as warranting any interference of this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review."
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Saahila Lamba while the Respondent was represented by Special Public Counsel Umesh Burnwal.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was charged for dereliction of duty on allegation that on his watch, criminals cut the contact and catenary wire at 12 different places and stole about 150 meters of wire.
Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider that the total area underthe supervision of the petitioner was around 3 K.M. and he could not have been present at all places at the same time. She stated that the criminals took advantage of the same and committed the theft. She further submitted that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate as it was imposed with cumulative effect and as such shall have an impact throughout the career of the petitioner.
On the other hand, the Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Disciplinary Authority as also the Appellant and the Revisional Authorities considered the case on merit and found that the incident couldn't have happened had the petitioner been vigilant during his duty. He further submitted that as far as the punishment is concerned, the petitioner had earlier been found guilty of dereliction of duty only three months prior to the date of this incident.The petitioner, therefore, did not show any improvement and resultantly, the punishment awarded to him cannot be termed as disproportionate.
Reasoning By Court
The Court accepted the submissions of the Counsel for the Respondent and concluded that the punishment awarded was not disproportionate.
The Petition was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Babrey Singh vs. Union Of India & Ors. (2025:DHC:40-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner- Advocate Saahila Lamba
Respondent- Special Public Counsel Umesh Burnwal, Advocate Kunal Mallik, Advocate Paramjeet, Advocate Priya Gaur
Click here to read/ download Order