Decided on March 14,2007

Ram Phal And Anr., Prem Singh And Rajbir Singh Appellant
D.T.C. Respondents


HIMA KOHLI, J. - (1.) ALL these writ petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposal by passing a common order, as counsels for the parties agree that the facts of these matters and issues involved are common and the order assailed by the petitioners is also the same. The petitioners have assailed the orders dated 20th February and 4th May, 1995 passed by the respondent DTC removing the petitioners from the service of the respondent with immediate effect under Clause 15 (2) (vi) of D.R.T.A.(Conditions of Appointment and Services) Regulations, 1952.
(2.) FACTUAL matrix of the case is as narrated hereinafter. The petitioners were posted as the Assistant Traffic Inspectors on 1st April, 1994. On 12th April, 1994, they were suspended from service and were served with a charge sheet on 13th May, 1994 indicating the following irregularities and calling upon them to explain as to why action should not be taken against them for misconduct within the meaning of para 19 (f) (h) and (m) of the Standing Orders governing the conduct of DTC employees: That as per duty allocation, Raja Garden Terminal, West Checking, w.e.f.1.4.94, you were assigned the checking job in Beat No. 5+6 Along with Sh.Rajvir, ATI, T.No. 18046 & Sh.Prem Singh, ATI, T.No. 11456, but after scrutinizing your checking sheet for the different dates the following irregularities have been reported against you: 1) You did not perform your duty as per duty allocation i.e. in beat No. 5+6. You performed the duty in beat No. 10+11+12 unauthroisedly. 2) On 1.4.94, after availing rest you Along with Sh.Rajvir, ATI, and Sh.Prem Singh, ATI, checked the bus and mentioned the same in your checking sheet at S.No. 22, but you have shown different bus number in your checking sheet, however, the bus conductor and waybill numbers are same. In the aforesaid charge sheet, it was recorded that the past conduct of the petitioners shall be taken into consideration at the time of passing the final orders in the case. The petitioners filed their reply to the charge sheet which was not found satisfactory and pursuant thereto enquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioners. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding inter alias that both the charges mentioned in the charge sheet against the petitioners stood proved. As a result, the Disciplinary Authority vide orders dated 20th February, 1995 in respect of Mr.Ramphal, petitioner No. 1 in WP(C) No. 4824/95 and 4th May, 1995 in respect of Mr.Rajbir Singh, petitioner No. 2 in WP(C) No. 4824/95 and petitioner in WP(C) No. 5013/2001, imposed the penalty of removal from service with immediate effect. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 3474/1996, Mr.Prem Singh was also removed from service with immediate effect vide orders dated 20th February, 1995 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved by the said penalty imposed on them, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, however, rejected the appeal of the petitioners vide order dated 27th July, 1995. Under these circumstances, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions.
(3.) IT was submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the action of imposing the penalty of removing the petitioners from the service of the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory inasmuch as both the Disciplinary Authority as also the Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were a result of non -application of mind. It was submitted that no concrete evidence was brought on record or proved against the petitioners in the enquiry proceedings for them to have been held guilty. It was further submitted that the petitioners had served the respondent for about three decades, were holding the post of senior ATIs and were on the verge of promotion as TIs. There was no adverse entry in their CRs and there was no occasion to inflict any punishment upon them by the authorities as per their past record which could have invited such a serious penalty on them.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.