Delhi High Court
Sh.Brahm Prakash, Assistant ... vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 5 March, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.1324/2010
% Date of Decision: 05.03.2010
Sh.Brahm Prakash, Assistant Welder. .... Petitioner
Through Mr.Anil Mittal, Advocate
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation .... Respondent
Through Mr.S.Sharma, Advocate
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?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner has challenged the penalty of stoppage of next
annual increment with cumulative effect imposed upon him pursuant to
the disciplinary proceedings which had been challenged by him in OA
No.3431 of 2009, titled Sh.Brahm Prakash v. Delhi Transport
Corporation before Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,
which has been dismissed by order dated 26th November, 2009 which
order is challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition before
this Court.
The allegation against the petitioner was that without justification
he had refused to carry out an order in the course of his duty. On 4th
July, 2008, he was asked by Assistant Foreman to weld an axel shaft
which was declined by him on the ground that he was not a welder but
only an Assistant Welder. The petitioner had a grouse about
positioning unqualified and inexperienced persons above him and
consequently he had declined to carry out the work entrusted to him.
Charge memo was issued to him and enquiry Officer after
following the due process had found the charges against the petitioner
made out. The enquiry officer had declined to rely on the statement of
the witness of the petitioner, Mr.Yogesh, deposing that it was tea time
and the petitioner was not asked by the Foreman to do the work. It was
rather suggested on behalf of the petitioner that the incident had not
taken place at all as alleged.
After considering the respective depositions, the Inquiry Officer
had held that the petitioner had failed to carry out an order in the
course of his duties and on the basis of preponderance of probabilities
held against the petitioner and had declined to accept his version that
the incident had not taken place.
The Disciplinary Authority awarded the penalty of stoppage of
next one annual increment with cumulative effect. The learned counsel
for the petitioner has failed to make out a case that the findings of the
Inquiry Officer are based on no evidence or suffers from such
irregularity or illegality which would require any interference of this
Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to make
out a case that punishment awarded to the petitioner is excessive in
any manner.
Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances, for the
foregoing reasons, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of
the Tribunal dismissing the petition challenging the order of
Disciplinary Authority imposing a penalty of stoppage of next one
annual increment with cumulative effect.
The writ petition is without any merit and it is, therefore,
dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
March 05, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'k/Dev'
