Dtc vs Vijender Singh
2010 Latest Caselaw 2337 Del

*                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                              WP(C) No.2933/2010

%                         Date of Decision: 03.05.2010

DTC                                                     .... Petitioner
                       Through Mr. J.S. Bhasin and Ms. Rashmi Priya,
                               Advocates

                                     Versus

Vijender Singh                                             .... Respondent
                       Through Nemo

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                  NO
      in the Digest?




ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner, Delhi Transport Corporation has challenged the

order dated 19th October, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Principal Bench in TA No. 1220/2009 titled as Sh. Vijender

Singh Vs. The Management of DTC, allowing the original application of

the respondent and holding that the respondent shall not be entitled for

anything more than what has been paid to him during the period

of suspension from the date of his suspension upto the date of his

acquittal as a subsistence allowance; he would be entitled

to full salary between the date of acquittal and reinstatement and he

would be deemed to be in service for the purpose of fixation of pay and

the respondent, however, shall not be entitled for any interest on any of

the amount payable to the respondent.

Brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that the

respondent was arrested in a criminal case on 15th October, 1995 and

he was placed under suspension which continued up to 2nd December,

2000. The Session Court had convicted him on 6th December, 2000 and

the respondent had been dismissed from the service under clause 15 (2)

(vii) of the DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulation

1952 and the instructions on the subject.

The respondent had preferred a criminal appeal No. 681/97

which was, however, allowed by order dated 20th March, 2001 and

pursuant to his acquittal and the representation made by respondent to

the petitioner, he had been reinstated in service on 11th December,

2002.

On reinstatement, the admissible benefits were denied to the

respondent and therefore, he filed the writ petition on 4th January,

2008, which was later on transferred to Central Administrative

Tribunal, Principal Bench which is decided by the Tribunal on 19th

October, 2009, which is order is impugned before this Court.

Before the Tribunal, respondent had claimed full wages from

the date of suspension after deducting the amount paid to him as

subsistence allowance and full salary from the date High Court

acquitted him till the date of reinstatement along with eight increments

for the period. The respondent had claimed all these amounts also

contending that during the period of suspension from 15th October,

1995, up to his reinstatement on 11th December, 2002, he was not

employed alternatively and therefore, he was entitled for full salary.

The petitioners had opposed the plea of the respondent

contending inter alia that an order dated 23rd September, 2003 was

passed by which a penalty of censure was imposed pursuant to a show

cause notice dated 11th August, 2003, and the subsistence allowance

paid to the respondent was adequate. Therefore, he is not entitled for

full salary. The petitioners also relied on the unsatisfactory service

record of the respondent and suspension from 5th September, 2003 and

the censure order passed against him and revocation of suspension

from 7th November, 2003.

The Tribunal after considering the pleas and contentions of the

parties held that the period from 4th September, 2003 up to 7th

November, 2003 was after his reinstatement on 11th December, 2002

and therefore, was not relevant for the period up to his reinstatement.

Whether the respondent was entitled for full salary or not and whether

increments for about eight years could be withheld till the time he was

reinstated on 11th December, 2002 were not effected by the subsequent

imposition of censure.

.

The Tribunal relied on DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and

Service) Regulation, 1952 contemplating effect of suspension under

Clause 15(iv). The said clause contemplates that where suspension of

an employee is unjustified or in a case where the employee who has

been dismissed or suspended, is later on reinstated, the concerned

authority is to grant the benefit of pay to such an employee. Reliance

was also placed on sub clause (b)(i) stipulating that in case of acquittal

such am employee would be entitled to full pay to which he would have

been entitled if he had not been dismissed, removed or suspended.

Referring to Clause (ii), it was also held that such an employee will be

entitled to such portion of pay and allowances as the authorities may

prescribe.

The Tribunal also noticed that the petitioners having passed

the detailed order for the claim of the respondent for the period from

1995 when he was suspended till 11th December, 2002 when he was

reinstated, during the period the respondent was under suspension, he

would be entitled for subsistence allowance only which had already

been paid to him and not the full salary on the ground that it has not

been shown that the suspension was unwarranted or unjust. This

finding of the Tribunal has not been challenged by the respondent. The

learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the respondent

has not challenged the order of the Tribunal granting only subsistence

allowance which has already been paid to him during the period he

remained under suspension and no other amount has been granted

during this period. This finding of the Tribunal in the facts and

circumstances cannot be faulted.

The Tribunal has granted full salary from the date of acquittal

till the date of reinstatement. The respondent was acquitted on 20th

March, 2001 and he had been reinstated on 11th December, 2002 and

in the circumstances, granting full salary from the date of acquittal till

his reinstatement is in consonance with DRTA (Conditions of

Appointment and Services) Regulations, 1952 and cannot be faulted.

The learned counsel for the petitioner is also unable to disclose

any cogent ground as to why the respondent should not be entitled for

full salary from the date he was acquitted till the date he was

reinstated.

During the period from 1995 till 2002 no explanation has been

given as to why increments for about eight years had been withheld for

the purpose of fixation of pay. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has

directed the petitioner to re-fix the pay from the date of his

reinstatement and workout the benefits on this basis by grant of annual

increment.

The learned counsel for the petitioner is also unable to show

any plausible cogent ground to show that such a direction is contrary to

any Rule or Regulation or makes the order illegal or irregular.

Consequently, even this direction of the Tribunal cannot be faulted.

The Tribunal has not granted any interest on any amount of pay and

allowances which is to be paid to the respondent.

In the totality of the facts and circumstances, we do not find

any such illegality or any irregularity or such perversity in the order of

the Tribunal which shall require any interference by this Court in

exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is without any merit and is, therefore,

dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

MAY 03, 2010                                     MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'rs'