Shiv Kumar vs Delhi Transport Corporation
2011 Latest Caselaw 3686 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+               Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5456/2011

%                          Date of Decision: 2nd August, 2011


Shiv Kumar                                 ....Petitioner
                     Through     Mr. Prashant Katara, Advocate.

                     VERSUS

Delhi Transport Corporation         .....Respondent
                 Through Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

Consequent upon departmental enquiry, the petitioner, a driver

in the Delhi Transport Corporation, was awarded penalty of stoppage of

next due two annual increments with cumulative effective. The

petitioner filed OA No. 3030/2009, against the said punishment but has

not been successful before the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Principal Bench, Delhi (Tribunal, for short). He has now approached this

Court.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the enquiry report and

consequent proceedings are perverse and based on no evidence. It is

submitted that the enquiry officer and the authorities should not have

relied upon the testimony of H.C. Gupta as there were cross-complaints

and an FIR is registered against H.C. Gupta and the case is still pending.

3. The petitioner, a driver with the respondent corporation since

1988, was served with a charge-sheet dated 7th January, 2004. The

relevant portion of the said charge-sheet reads as under:-

"In terms of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and Section 4(E) of Delhi Road Transport Legal (Amended) Act, 1971 read with Part 15(2) of Delhi Road Transport Authority (Terms of Appointment and Services) Rules, 1952, it is desired from you to clarify why not disciplinary action be initiated against you for the following irregularities:-

"As per the statement mentioned in the report dated 14.11.2003, 7.11.2003 and 10.11.2003 respectively submitted by Shri Raghubir Singh Transport Supervisor, T.N. 3580, Shri Gyan Chandra A.T.I. T.N. 20697 and Shri Chander Singh Security Hawaldar T.N. 116, on 7.11.2003 at about 1410 hours when you are entering the Depot gate after furnishing your duty along with your route and duty No. School Bus/14th Operative Bus No. 1562, at that time during the checking of the bus by the Regional Manager (N), you had not only misbehaved with him but had also manhandled him, due to which the work of checking got disturbed."

Due to the above act of yours, the duty officer Shri Gyan Chand A.T.I. had to dial 100 number and call the police. This incident was attended by the Policemen on duty in the PCR Van No. DL/CH 2765.

Your above act shows violation of Rules, disobeying of directions given by the higher officer and irresponsible behaviour towards higher officer.

Your above act is a violation of the Para No. 19(A), (H) and (M) of the standing orders of the concerned executive orders of the above duty and comes within the ambit of misbehavior as per the meaning given in the Conduct Rules of DTC employees."

4. The enquiry officer submitted his report recording the finding

that the charges leveled against the petitioner stand proved. The

disciplinary authority after considering the reply filed by the petitioner

confirmed the proposed penalty of stoppage of next due two

increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 11th June, 2007.

The appeal filed by the petitioner was not considered by the appellate

authority for the reason of it being time barred. The petitioner had also

approached the grievance committee without success.

5. The petitioner filed the Original Application before the tribunal

after more than two years of the appellate order dated 17th September,

2007. The tribunal did not find merit in the contention that the delay

was caused and was bonafidely explained as the petitioner had filed a

petition with the Grievance Committee. On merits the tribunal has

held that the enquiry officer had dealt with the evidence produced by

the parties including the petitioner. It was observed that the testimony

of H.C. Gupta was supported by some other evidence and it was not

open for the tribunal to go into the evidence.

6. The enquiry officer while recording the findings has examined the

evidence on record. The statement of the defence witnesses was also

considered. H.C. Gupta, Sr. Manager had stated that he along with

supervisory staff had gone for checking of the DTC buses at Schools. It

was found that the petitioner had reached the school, one and half

hours prior to the prescribed time. Subsequently, he followed a vacant

DTC bus which was without a board, without knowing that it was the

same bus which was driven by the petitioner. When the bus reached

the depot gate, he questioned the petitioner but the petitioner became

very angry, came down from his seat and misbehaved with him and had

also beaten him. Van driver had seen the incident. Police was also

called.

7. Having gone through the records and the findings recorded by

the tribunal, we are of the opinion that it cannot be stated that the

enquiry report is perverse and based on no material. It is not for this

court to reappraise the evidence as an appellate forum and substitute

our own view in place of the enquiry officer/disciplinary authority. The

writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE August 2, 2011 kkb