O.S. Saxena vs Delhi Transport Corporation And ...
1991 Latest Caselaw 251 Del

JUDGMENT

Leila Seth, J.

(1) The petitioner was appointed as a Traffic Inspector Grade I on 24th October, 1967 in the Delhi Transport Corporation. Subsequently, he was promoted to Assistant Traffic Superintendent and thereafter to traffic Superintendent on 31st December, 1968.

(2) In 1980 a first information report was lodged against the petitioner and he was convicted by an order and judgment dated 2nd April, 1981 under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner then filed an appeal in this Court, which was admitted and is pending hearing being Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 1981.

(3) The petitioner's services were terminated by an order dated 22nd January, 1986 issued under Regulation 9(b) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations").

(4) The petitioner filed this writ petition in February, 1986 challenging the said order of termination. On 14th February, 1986 Rule D.B. was issued and it was directed that this writ petition be heard along with Civil Writ Petition Nos. 280 and 281 of 1986.

(5) Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application, being C.M. 595 of 1986 and this Court directed on 26th February, 1986 that he "will not be evicted from the premises allotted to him till the next date". This order was extended from time to time. Another application was moved, being C.M. 1602 of 1986 and on 23rd May, 1986, this Court directed the Delhi Transport Corporation to pay the petitioner's "salary for the months of May and June, 1986 on the basis that the petitioner would have been paid had he been in service". On 24th July, 1986, Mr. S.N. Bhandari, counsel for the respondents, gave two undertakings; that the petitioner would be paid his salary henceforth and that he will not be evicted from the premises allotted to him till the petition is decided.

(6) On 14th May, 1987, Regulation 9(b) of the said Regulations was struck down by a judgment of this Court in D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and another v. Union of India and another, 1866 53 Flr 158. The judgment of this Court was upheld by the Supreme Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and another, . Regulation 9(b) was struck down as it lacked adequate and appropriate guidelines. Consequently, the impugned order of termination dated 22nd January, 1986 under Regulation 9(b) is quashed.

(7) We are informed that the petitioner has since retired on 28th February, 1991. However, Mr. Bhandari contends that the petitioner should be called upon to refund the salary paid to him in view of the fact, that he would not have been entitled to reinstatement but only to some small compensation as the management had lost confidence in him since he had been convicted on 2nd April, 1981.

(8) It appears to us, that this argument is hypothetical because the question of whether the petitioner should be granted the normal relief of reinstatement as the termination order has been quashed or compensation in lieu thereof because the management has lost confidence in him is no longer pertinent in view of the fact that the petitioner has already been superannuated.

(9) However, it will be open to the respondents to take such action as is available to them in accordance with law and it will be open to the petitioner to raise such objection as he is entitled to. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, we make no order as to costs.

(10) In view of the fact that the petitioner has been superannuated, he is no longer entitled to the premises and should vacate the same within a month from today.