P.K. Basu, Member (A) - (1.) THE service of the applicant, who was a Driver in Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), was terminated vide order dated 2.02.2011 under clause 9(a)(I) of the DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952. The relevant portion of clause 9(a)(I) reads as under: 9. Termination of Service (a) Except as otherwise specified in the appointment orders, the services of an employee of the Authority may be terminated without any notice or pay in lieu of notice (I) During the period of probation and without assigning any reasons thereof. The applicant had filed an appeal, which was also rejected vide order dated 26.04.2012.
(2.) THE applicant was appointed and joined as Driver in DTC on 4.02.2009. His services were terminated during his probation period by a simpliciter order, as stated above. Being aggrieved by this action of the respondents, the present OA has been filed with a prayer to quash the orders dated 2.02.2011, 26.04.2012 and 6.06.2012, the last being the rejection of his appeal dated 3.05.2012 to reinstate him in service. The applicant's case is that he had been issued a charge memorandum dated 29.09.2009 alleging that he had not disclosed at the time of appointment regarding certain criminal cases registered against him. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.04.2010, a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was passed in the departmental proceedings. The applicant has raised the ground of res judicata stating that once he has been punished for an offence, his services could not be terminated on the same charge itself. The applicant has also placed on record some notings of the file, copies of which have been annexed to the OA in which one Dy. C.G.M. has expressed the opinion that the applicant should be reinstated in service and that before passing the termination order, Regional Manager and PLD had to be consulted.
(3.) IN support of his case, the applicant also cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.P. Ahuja Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1965/2000. The facts of that case, in brief, are that the appellant was appointed as Chief Executive in the establishment of Punjab Cooperative Cotton Marketing & Spinning Mills Federation Limited and his services had been terminated without any notice. The terms and conditions of the appellant's appointment stated that he would be on probation for two years and that during the probation period, the management had a right to terminate his services without notice. The termination order was challenged in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana but the Writ was dismissed. The Hon ble Supreme Court held that the order of termination was stigmatic as also punitive. The order of termination in that case stated However, he failed in the performance of his duties administratively & technically... In this respect, para 8 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is relevant and is quoted below: 8. The affidavit filed by the parties before the High Court as also in this Court indicated the background in which the order, terminating the services of the appellant, came to be passed. Such an order which, on the face of it, is stigmatic, could not have been passed without holding a regular enquiry and giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.;