V.B. Julka S/O Shri J.M. Julka vs The Delhi Transport Corporation, ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 14 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. The petitioner initially joined in 1972 after qualifying All India Competitive Examination as Deputy Superintendent of Police in Border Security Force. In 1980 petitioner joined respondent No. 1 and worked as Vigilance Officer, thereafter he was promoted to the post of Senior Vigilance Officer in February'1985.

2. The petitioner was issued a charge sheet on 23.2.1987. The date of this charge sheet is important as the earlier Chairman-cum-Managing Director (hereinafter referred to as 'CMD') of the respondent No. 1 retired on 17.1.1987. Two charges were framed against the petitioner. The matter was referred to the Central Vigilance Commission, the Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries was appointed as Enquiry Authority, second charge was not proved as per the report of the Enquiry Authority and the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. respondent No. 1 also agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Authority in relation to the second charge levelled against the petitioner. The controversy in this petition is regarding charge No. 1. It is, therefore, important to reproduce the Charge No. 1 levelled against petitioner :-

"On 18.3.86 Shri V B Julka, while working as Senior Vigilance Officer, had put up a draft reply, drafted by Shri Gurmukh Singh, Vigilance Officer, on the vigilance File, for approval of the then Chairman-cum-Managing Director, in response to the Joint Secy. & Chief Vigilance Officer, Department of Surface Transport's d.o. Letter No. VIG/VTC/9/85 dated 28.11.85. This draft was approved by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director on the same day. The fair letter addressed to Chief Vigilance Officer, Ministry of Transport, Department of Surface Transport, was got signed by Shri Julka on 20.3.86 from the Chairman-cum-Managing Director."

3. Pursuance to the charges having been framed, the matter was referred to Central Vigilance Commission, who appointed Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries as Enquiry Authority to enquire into the charges against the petitioner. After taking the evidence the Enquiry Authority in assessment of the evidence found in para-5.1.2 of the report that :-

"The charged officer through Ex. D-8, which is a draft approved by the CMD along with the fair letter signed by the then CMD, as well as through cross-examining SW-3 has brought out the fact that the style of functioning of the then CMD was such that he did not sign on the approved draft, but carried out corrections, if any, or tick-marked/initialled the first page - as has been done on p/1 of Ex. S-2.................................................."

4. Another factor which was taken into consideration by the Enquiry Authority was Ex. D-10, which was a circular issued by the then CMD that CMD had ordered that no one else except him would use black ink in the office. The said order/circular was dated 11.1.1986. The Enquiry Authority found that Ex. S-2 the draft in question was put up on 17.3.1986 and fair letter on 20.3.1986, i.e. after the issue of the aforesaid order, Ex. D-10. It was also noticed by the Enquiry Authority that the corrections carried out on p/3 of Ex. S-2 were in the hand of the then CMD and the horizontal and vertical lines in black ink at page-2 of Ex. S-2 had also been drawn by the then CMD. The charge for which the youthful career of the petitioner came to an aburpt end, as the petitioner's services were terminated in the year 1987, was that on Ex. S-3 the last lines "that the matter be referred to CBI", was not in the hand of the then CMD but the CMD in a careless manner signed the fair letter without Realizing that these lines were added by the petitioner. It was strange that after the report of the Enquiry Authority which exonerated the petitioner of the charges, instead of dropping the charge Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the finding. Was this exercise simplicitor an exercise by the Disciplinary Authority? It seems that there were other reasons that is why petitioner was penalised by issuance of memo of disagreement. This court in normal circumstances would not have specifically dealt with this issue. In service jurisprudence it is well settled that Disciplinary Authority on the basis of cogent material may take a different view than the finding of Enquiry Authority but in the given case, whether the different view taken by the Disciplinary Authority was a view taken in view of what was happening in the respondent-organisation or the view was based on rational and cogent considerations. Respondent No. 2-Raghu Raj Singh against whom a reference was made by the Department of Surface Transport, pursuance to which a reply of the CMD in question was sent, allegations were made that relatives and family members of said Raghu Raj Singh, respondent No. 2 herein, were plying buses which was admitted on the Floor of the Parliament as per the letters Ex. S-2 and S-3. Respondent No. 2 was the person, who has issued the suspension order of the petitioner on 2.2.1987. That letter was issued after the earlier CMD had retired on 17.1.1987.

5. Another important aspect of the matter which could have settled the controversy before issuing of memo of disagreement was to record the statement of the then CMD, R N Kapoor. Once the letter had been signed by the then CMD, R N Kapoor, before issuing any memo of disagreement, it was incumbent upon the respondent to record his version, his comments on the authenticity of the contents of the letter. There is no charge that the signatures on Ex. S-3 were not of R N Kapoor. The presumption in law is that a person who signs a letter, knows about the contents of that letter. Even if it is assumed that it was the petitioner who had suggested to the CMD that in view of the grave charges against respondent No. 2, the matter needs to be referred to CBI, was this an offence for which the service of the petitioner was to be terminated? It is a autocratic and shocking exercise of power by the respondent.

6. I must point out that there is a letter placed at page-69 of the paper book, where the same CMD, R N Kapoor, on 14/15-5-1986 had written a letter to the Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Transport (Department of Surface Transport), stating therein that on perusal of source information, the allegations made against Raghu Raj Singh, respondent No. 2 herein, be properly investigated by either Ministry or CBI as number of complains were received from various sources containing information/allegations on similar lines. No dispute has been raised by the respondent, if the CMD could have written on 14/15.5.1986 that matter pertaining to Raghu Raj Singh, present respondent No. 2, be referred to CBI, the letter dated 20.3.1986, which is at page-60 of the paper book last lines referring the matter to CBI were not written by said CMD, though fair letter has been signed by CMD. The whole approach is preposterous and irrational. In a strange system with which were are faced, petitioner has been deprived of his status, promotion, emoluments and reputation and respondent No. 2 later on became CMD of the respondent-organisation. I have been told that even after the desptach of the letter written by the then CMD, no CBI enquiry was started against said Raghu Raj Singh, respondent No. 2. Counsel for the respondent has contended that Disciplinary Authority has a right to disagree with the finding of the Enquiry Authority and in support of her contentions, she has cited Kunj Behari Misra v. Chief Personnel (Disciplinary Authoity), Punjab National Bank and ORs. 198 SCC (L&S) 1783. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition of law, but as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs above, whether it was a case where disagreement was based on rationality, whether disagreement was based on factual aspects of the matter or it was in order to punish a person who had not been liked by the powers to be. As I have mentioned earlier that date of retirement of the earlier CMD, R N Kapoor, was important because on 17.1.1987, R N Kapoor retired, the petitioner gave a complaint to the Chairman of respondent-DTC, which was received in his office on 20.1.1987, which is to the following effect :-

"To

The Chairman,

D.T.C.

I P Estate, New Delhi -11 00 02.

Sir,

Respectfully I beg to state that I was called by G.M.(A) in his room on 19.1.87 at about 1515 hRs. and told that he will make my life miserable if i continue function in this style by suspending me and ensuring further enquiries etc. The exact words are reproduced.

"MERI TUMARI RASHI NAHI MILTI ISILIYE YEH TUMAHARE LIYE ACCHA HOGA AGAR TUM KHUD NAUKARI CHOD JAO NAHI TO MAIN TUMHE HUMILIATE KARUNGA, SUSPEND KARVAKE ENQUIRING VAGERA SE BEIJJAT KARUNGA AGEY TUM SAMAJHDAR HO."

I requested him the reason for this sudden anger. He refused to discuss and gave me 24 hours to think about it. I, therefore, suspect that on some flimsy grounds he may get me suspended. I am submitting this in anticipation for your information.

It will not be appropriate for me to work under him in these circumstances. I would request for a Personal Interview so that I can explain the back ground. I am under great pressure and mental tension on this account.

Please grant me personal hearing early.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully"

7. In spite of that complaint instead of taking any action on the complaint the petitioner was served with the suspension order and that too issued by the same General Manager, Raghu Raj Singh, on 23.2.1987. In the letter dated 20.3.1986, Ex. S-3, i.e. the fair letter following paragraph is of important :-

"The question was raised in the Parliament alleging that Shri Singh deals in Sale and Purchase of foreign cars and his buses were plying under DTC Operation in the name of his brother and father. The question was replied by the Management admitting that father and brother of Sh. R R Singh were running private buses under DTC Operation. Further in the year 1980 unstarred Question No. 1581 was also raised by Smt. Pramila Dandvate in the Lok Sabha with regard to recovery of incriminating documents from the almirahs of Sh. Singh....................................."

8. When these were the contents of the letter of which there is no dispute, how it could have been presumed by the Disciplinary Authority in issuing the memo of disagreement that the then CMD had not signed the letter after reading it for referring the matter to CBI probe. On the ground which has been taken by the Disciplinary Authority in memo of disagreement shocks the conscience of this Court. It is totally arbitrary, irrational and seems that invisible hands of said Raghu Raj Singh, respondent No. 2 against whom CBI investigation was ordered by the earlier CMD, wanted to teach a lesson to the petitioner, which ultimately he could do so.

9. For these reasons, I quash the order of Disciplinary Authority. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. I would have imposed exemplary cost to be recovered from respondent No. 2, Raghu Raj Singh, but I have been told that he has since retired. Imposing of cost on respondent-DTC would amount to burdening the public exchequer and tax payers, however, I impose a cost of Rs. 25,000/= on the respondents. The rule is made absolute.

10. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.

11. All the benefits be given to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks after adjusting the amount, if any already paid to the petitioner.