The Delhi High Court refuses to interfere with the punishment awarded by the employer

Brief facts in W.P.(C) 7570/2016 involves petitioner working as security, being charged for dereliction of duty on account of theft of wire from the area under his supervision, consequently he was punished by reducing his salary by three stages for 3 years with cumulative effect. The respondent employer contended that the criminals had cut the wire at 12 places and had stolen 150 m of wire from 12 places, which could have been easily avoided if the petitioner was vigilant in his duty. The petitioner was also found guilty of dereliction of duty three months prior to the date of this incident. The petitioner argued that total area under the supervision of the petitioner was 3 K.M. and he could not be present at all places at the same time. The court noted that although the area was 3 K.M., the criminals carried out activities at 12 places without being noticed by the petitioner, which clearly shows he was not diligent in performance of his duties, further the court can only interfere if the punishment awarded is found to be unconscionable in the light of the facts, which is not the case. It is opined that despite the previous conviction, petitioner had not changed or mended his ways and has remained lethargic and irresponsible on duty, hence there is no merit in the petition.