Ram Chander, Conductor, B.No. ... vs Delhi Transport Corporation
2009 Latest Caselaw 2667 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  W.P.(C) No. 7420/2009

%                  Date of Decision: 16 July, 2009


# RAM CHANDER, CONDUCTOR, B.NO. 22989 S.N. DEPOT
                                                ..... PETITIONER
!           Through: Mr. Anil Mittal, Advocate.

                               VERSUS

$ DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION                     ....RESPONDENT

^                  Through: Mr. Saurabh Chadda, Advocate.


CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1.    Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see
      the judgment? YES
2.    To be referred to the reporter or not? YES
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in the
      Digest? YES

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)



+ WP(C) No. 7420/2009

*

This writ petition filed by the workman (petitioner herein) is

directed against an award dated 26.09.2008 passed by Shri Gurdeep

Kumar, Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-II, Delhi confirming the

penalty of stoppage of 2 increments with cumulative effect imposed by

the management of Delhi Transport Corporation upon the petitioner for

his proved mis-conduct with regard to the incident that took place on

13.08.1993 while the petitioner was on duty on Route No. 611 at Dhaula

Kuan near Ram Lal Anand College.

2. Heard on admission.

3. The petitioner was employed as conductor in Delhi Transport

Corporation (respondent herein). On 13.08.1993, he was on duty on bus

No. DL-1P-9282, Route No. 611/6-A and when the said bus reached at

Ram Lal Anand College, a scuffle took place between the boys and girls in

the bus due to which a shameful incident took place but the petitioner did

not make a call to the Central Control Room or took the bus to the police

station. Due to this inaction on the part of the petitioner, the goodwill of

the respondent Corporation allegedly suffered because the incident was

reported in the media pointing out lapse on the part of the Delhi

Transport Corporation. The news item with regard to this incident was

published in 'Navbharat Times' of 16.08.1993 edition. The petitioner was

chargesheeted vide charge sheet dated 20.08.1993. Domestic inquiry

was held against him. In the inquiry, he was found guilty of charges

levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the

report of the Inquiry Officer and taking note of conduct of the petitioner,

decided to impose the penalty of stoppage of 2 increments on the

petitioner with cumulative effect.

4. Aggrieved by the penalty imposed upon the petitioner, the

petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the

appropriate Government for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. The

Industrial Tribunal after following the due procedure and giving

opportunity to both the parties and taking stock of the facts and

circumstances of the case vide its impugned award dated 26.09.2008

came to the conclusion that the penalty of stoppage of 2 increments with

cumulative effect imposed upon the petitioner is justified.

5. Mr. Anil Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner, submits that this Court may consider this petition only on the

quantum of punishment and in case, the Court deems appropriate, the

penalty of stoppage of 2 increments with cumulative effect imposed upon

the petitioner by the management of DTC be reduced to that of stoppage

of 2 increments without cumulative effect.

6. I am not impressed with this argument advanced by the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I am of the view that the

Court should not interfere with the quantum of penalty imposed upon the

delinquent employee by the management unless to the conscious of the

Court, the penalty appears to be highly disproportionate. Once a

delinquent employee is found guilty of charges levelled against him, then

it is for the management to decide as to what appropriate penalty has to

be imposed on him. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make

a representation to the management of DTC for reconsideration of the

penalty imposed on him and in case, any such representation is made by

the petitioner, then the appropriate authority in DTC will decide the said

representation within 6 weeks of receipt of the said representation as per

rules applicable in this regard.

7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition which

fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

JULY 16, 2009                                  S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'bsr'