Delhi High Court
Dtc vs Satish Chand on 6 July, 2010
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 6th July, 2010
+ W.P.(C) 3876/2010
DTC ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate
versus
SATISH CHAND ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
Caveat No.110/2010
In spite of being served, the caveator has not
appeared. Hence the caveat is discharged.
CM No.7783/2010
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) No.3876/2010
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order
dated 11.3.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal
allowing O.A.No.2254/2009.
2. Satish Chand, the respondent was the applicant
before the Central Administrative Tribunal and was aggrieved by
the fact that the Disciplinary Authority had passed an order
removing him from service after an inquiry was held and the
Appellate Authority had rendered him partial justice by
modifying the penalty imposed and replaced the same by
directing that two increments would be withheld without
cumulative effect and the period Satish Kumar remained under
suspension would be treated as "no work no wages" i.e. the
result was that the period spent on suspension resulted in only
subsistence allowance flowing to the coffers of Satish Chand and
not salary.
3. The procedure prescribed by law for imposition of
penalty was ostensibly followed and it is not a subject matter of
issue whether compliance with the procedure of law was made
or not.
4. The issue raised was whether the report of the
inquiry officer was vitiated on account of material evidence
being ignored and the parameters adopted to evaluate oral
testimony were misdirected.
5. The Tribunal has found it to be so.
6. The report of the inquiry officer has been placed
before us and is at pages 39 to 51 of the writ record.
7. Having perused the same it becomes important that
the Department examined 3 witnesses and in defence 1 witness
was examined.
8. Des Raj, the complainant, was the first witness of the
prosecution. Sanjay is the second witness of the prosecution
and Bhola Ram is the third witness of the prosecution. Inderjeet
is the witness of the defence.
9. To understand what they have deposed and the
approach to be adopted to their testimony and the conclusions
to be drawn, it may be noted that Satish Chand i.e. the
respondent was served with a charge memo on the basis of a
complaint lodged by Des Raj who is an employee of DTC. As per
Des Raj on 3.9.2006 he had boarded a DTC bus being driven by
Satish Chand and that Satish Chand deviated from the
prescribed route. When the bus reached near Sachdeva School
at Sector 13, he required Satish Chand to ply the bus on the
prescribed route at which Satish Chand assaulted him.
10. Admitting to a quarrel between the two, defence
taken by Satish Chand was that Des Raj compelled him to
deviate from the prescribed route. He told him that the Deputy
Manager was his relation and if he i.e. Satish Chand would not
comply with the same, he would see that harm is caused to
Satish Chand. As per Satish Chand since he was compelled to
do something which would be an unauthorized act, he refused to
do so and as a result a quarrel ensued between the two.
11. It is thus apparent that a quarrel having taken place
was not the subject matter in issue. What was in issue was as to
who provoked the quarrel and whether the quarrel took place in
the circumstances as alleged by Des Raj or as stated by Satish
Chand. It also was an issue whether Satish Chand deviated from
the route.
12. Needless to state, appearing as a witness of the
Department, Desraj deposed facts in harmony with his
complaint.
13. Sanjay, another employee of DTC simply stated that
a quarrel took place and threw no light as to the place or
circumstance under which the quarrel took place.
14. Bhola Ram supported what was deposed to by Des
Raj.
15. However, it becomes relevant to note that Bhola Ram
admitted being the brother of complainant Des Raj.
16. It is not in dispute that when Satish Chand was
driving the bus, Inderjeet was deputed as a conductor. He was
examined as a defence witness. He deposed facts in favour of
Satish Chand and stated that it was Des Raj who was wanting
Satish Chand to deviate from the prescribed route and that Des
Raj was the aggressor.
17. The inquiry officer has totally eschewed consideration
to the testimony of Inderjeet. The inquiry officer has not
adverted to the fact that Bhola Ram was the brother of Des Raj.
18. It is apparent that the inquiry officer is oblivious to
the legal principle that where it is shown that a witness is an
interested witness, his testimony needs to be scrutinized with
care. The inquiry officer has shown his ignorance to another
legal principle that where a disinterested and independent
witness deposes, his testimony has to be given due credence
and unless found to be tainted or wanting, subject to the norm
of reasonable acceptability, must get precedent over the ocular
version of those who are interested witnesses.
19. This is the taint which has been found by the
Tribunal, though not stated in said terms.
20. We supplement the reasons of the Tribunal.
21. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner
that it is not within the domain of Service Tribunals to re-
appreciate evidence and hence the impugned order needs to be
set aside is rejected by us for the reason it is not a case of re-
appreciation of evidence but a case of applying correct legal
norms pertaining to appreciation of evidence which have been
ignored by the inquiry officer.
22. Finding no merit in the petition, we dismissed the
same in limine.
CM No.7782/2010
Since the writ petition has been dismissed in limine,
the instant application which seeks stay of the impugned order
pending hearing of the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
JULY 06, 2010/mm
