Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Surender Singh on 20 January, 2010
Author: Mool Chand Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No. 371/2010
% Date of Decision: 20.01.2010
DELHI TRANSPORT COPORTATION .... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate
Versus
SURENDER SINGH .... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be Yes
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in No
the Digest?
: MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
*
1. This writ petition has been filed by the Delhi Transport
Corporation against the order dated 10.08.2009 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal in TA No. 330/2009 titled as Surender Singh
Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., whereby the Tribunal has set
aside the punishment imposed on the respondent Surender Singh on
the ground of discrimination, directed reinstatement of the said
respondent but restricted his back wages only to the extent of 25% with
continuity in service.
2. The respondent filed a Writ Petition (Civil) bearing No. 319/1996
before this Court, which later on was transferred to the Tribunal vide
order dated 2.2.2009 in view of the Notification issued by the Central
Government on 1.12.2008.
3. The respondent at the relevant time was working as a driver with
the Delhi Transport Corporation and was removed from service in the
year 1996 after the charges as per the charge sheet served upon him
were found to have been proved during the course of investigation. The
charges were to the effect that he came to Depot with a snake on
13.9.1995 along with Jagpal Singh, conductor, who gave him full
company. Seeing the snake, the workers of the Depot became
frightened. A report was lodged against the respondent and Jagpal
Singh by Traffic Inspector, who is the complainant. On that basis both
respondent and Jagpal Singh were proceeded departmentally. Both of
them were suspended immediately and thereafter, they were served
with a charge sheet. After the enquiry was completed, the respondent
was removed from service. However, the conductor, Jagpal Singh, who
had been accused of similar charges, had been left off with a minor
penalty viz. stoppage of one increment for one year without cumulative
effect.
4. In the writ petition, the respondent had submitted that he was
subjected to discrimination in the matter of imposition of penalty and
the allegations as found proved is drastically different from the report,
which became the foundation for the action. The statement of the
Traffic Inspector as noted down by the Tribunal in the impugned order
is as follows:-
"Above conductor Shri Jagpal Singh, B.No. 14685
came in the Depot along with Sh. Surinder Singh,
Driver, B.No. 17568 and took a snake from Shri
Surinder Singh and frightened the workers of Schedule
Section with snake and at that time I was there.
On this the Conductor Shri Shardha Ram B.No.
19248 and Shri Niranjan Kumar B. No. 18044 forbad to
misbehave, then he started abusing both of them. And
then these two Conductors with a great difficulty ousted
the Conductor Shri Jagpal Singh from the room and the
Depot who was troubling the workers.
Due to this act on the part of conductor Shri Jagpal
Singh and Driver Shri Surinder Singh all the employees
were under fear and it caused disruption in the Govt.
work.
Report is submitted for further action."
5. This discriminatory treatment was not disputed by the counsel on
behalf of Delhi Transport Corporation. It was only argued that
imposition of penalty is a matter which falls within the discretion of the
competent authority and the Tribunal should not interfere in the matter
of quantum of punishment.
6. However, the Tribunal after considering all the submissions made
on behalf of both the parties made the following observations:-
7. Of course, the principles as stated by the
standing counsel requires acceptance. But it also
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case
when the justifiability is tested in an adjudication.
When Mr. Sudan pointed out that practically the
allegations are identical in all respects and the
conductor had also been misbehaving and using abusive
words, adoption of different yardsticks may by itself
spell out unreasonableness, unless satisfactory
explanation forthcomes. There is no marked difference
as between the misbehavior committed by the driver and
the conductor. Really the suggestion is that conductor
was the more active participant on the date. It is also
not explained whether they had any other ulterior
motives for their extraordinary conduct on that day
while exhibiting their pet. The altogether different
manner and yardstick by which the two employees had
been dealt with by the corporation is not explained.
When it is decided that Jagpal Singh deserved only a
minor penalty, there should be very strong reason to
differentiate the conduct of the driver. It is not made
clear whether any one of them were on duty, and
whether it was a case of a frolic or frivolousness which
suddenly went out of hand. The evidence in the enquiry
is preciously minimal, so as to throw light as to what
exactly had transpired.
8. We also notice that there is no reference in the
penalty advice that the applicant had any bad records of
service, which could have justified an aggravating
condition.
9. As no explanation forthcomes for the differential
treatment, we set aside the impugned orders. We would
have directed the respondents to come up with further
orders vis-`-vis the applicant in line with the orders that
had been issued while dealing with the case of co-
delinquent, Jagpal Singh, but because of passage of
years, we think it will be appropriate that the issue is
given quietus, in these proceedings itself.
10. We hereby direct the respondents to reinstate the
applicant in service but he will be entitled to 25 % of
the back wages till the date of his reinstatement.
However, he should be deemed as to have continued in
service. He is to be given fixation of salary on that
basis. For the purpose of backwages salary which he
was drawing as on the date of his removal alone need be
taken into consideration. Implementation orders are to
be issued within two months from today. We make no
order as to costs.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this order
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is required to be set
aside for the reason that despite upholding of the guilt of the
respondent, the Tribunal has not permitted the petitioner to pass an
appropriate order in the form of any other penalty in place of penalty of
removal from service.
8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioner and we find that in the present case in
view of the conduct of the petitioner in having treated differently the two
employees of the DTC viz. Surender Singh and Jagpal Singh, who, as
stated above, were guilty of similar misconduct, the order passed by the
Tribunal in setting aside the punishment awarded to the respondent i.e.
removing him from service, which was not justified, does not call for
any interference. One of the factors considered by the Tribunal is the
time gap and rightly so.
9. Insofar as the arguments made by Ms.Ahlawat that in this case
the department should have been given an opportunity to pass an
appropriate order of sentence, we feel that restricting of back wages to
the extent of 25% takes care of the situation. Moreover, we do not find
any infirmity in the order which requires intervention of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ
petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed, of course, with no order as
to costs.
C.M.No. 779/2010 (Stay)
In view of the orders passed above, this application has become
infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.
MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
JANUARY 20, 2010 ANIL KUMAR, J.
„dc‟
