Delhi High Court
Mahabir Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 13 December, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13th December, 2011.
+ W.P.(C) 8653/2011
% HARDEEP SINGH .......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Mittal & Mr. Amritansh
Batheja, Advocates.
Versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION. ..... Respondent
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms. Lakita
Choudhary, Advocates.
AND
+ W.P.(C) 8669/2011
% MAHABIR SINGH .......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Mittal & Mr. Amritansh
Batheja, Advocates.
Versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms. Lakita
Choudhary, Advocates.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitions though by separate petitioners, impugn the common
order dated 10th October, 2011 of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissing OA No.3418/2010 and OA
No.3235/2010 preferred by each of the petitioners respectively. The
petitioners in both the writ petitions, employed with the respondent DTC as
Drivers, were charged with, having on 4th December, 1987 at 1500 hours
entered the room of the Depot Manager, Naraina Depot unauthorizedly,
having used unparliamentary language and also behaved in an objectionable
manner with the Depot Manager, having attacked Mr. R.B.L. Srivastava,
Traffic Superintendent, Naraina Depot, who was also present in the room of
Depot Manager at the time of the incident with a chair and having fled
therefrom by breaking the sheets of the boundary of Naraina Depot after
meting out threats to the Depot Manager to kill him.
2. The charges were found by the Inquiry Officer to have been proved
against both petitioners and the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent
DTC after giving notice to the petitioners imposed punishment of "bringing
the petitioners in the initial stage of Driver's pay scale for a period of two
years". The departmental appeals of the petitioners were dismissed. The
petitioners thereafter approached the Tribunal by preferring OAs aforesaid.
3. The version of both petitioners was/is that they had taken leave from
duty and gone to their Village-Sahalavasa in District-Rohtak, Haryana; that
they were riding on a two wheeler scooter along with another person and
were apprehended by the Police at around 1535 hours on 4th December 1987
and challaned for triple riding and for not possessing Registration Certificate
and Driving Licence. It was thus their case that when they were at Rohtak,
Haryana at 1535 hours on 4th December, 1987, they could not on the same
day at 1500 hours possibly have indulged in the acts aforesaid at Naraina
Depot.
4. In this regard it may be mentioned that FIR No.423/1987 under
Sections 323/506/34 IPC of Police Station-Patel Nagar, New Delhi was also
lodged of the incident aforesaid at Naraina Depot on 4 th December, 1987 and
the petitioners were prosecuted. Though they were convicted under Sections
323/506/34 IPC and released on probation but the appeals preferred by them
were allowed by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the
ground that in view of the challan at Rohtak, Haryana at the same time, it
was doubtful that the petitioners could at the same time be at Naraina Depot,
at a distance of about 150 Km. from Rohtak, Haryana.
5. It was/is thus the case of the petitioners, that having been acquitted of
the same charge, the punishment meted out to them is wrongful.
6. The Tribunal by referring to Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager
(PJ) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia (2005) 7 SCC 764, Kamaladevi
Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal (2002) 1 SCC 555 and Commissioner of
Police, New Delhi Vs. Narender Singh (2006) 4 SCC 265 held that,
acquittal by a Criminal Court does not preclude an employer from taking
action, the rules of evidence in the two proceedings being different. The
Tribunal, from the Inquiry Officer's report found the charges to have been
proved on the basis of deposition of the witnesses as well as documentary
proof. The Tribunal has also recorded satisfaction that the entire inquiry
proceedings had been held in accordance with law and strictly following the
principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the OAs preferred by the
petitioners, were dismissed.
7. The counsel for the petitioners before us has again reiterated that the
petitioners at the time of the incident, for the reason of being at Rohtak,
Haryana, could not possibly have been at Naraina Depot and the charges and
findings against them are false and the punishment meted out to them
contrary to law, they having been acquitted of the same charges in the
prosecution.
8. We have enquired from the counsel for the petitioners as to whether
there is anything to show that the police official who challaned, allegedly the
petitioners, for triple riding and without requisite documents at Rohtak,
Haryana, had satisfied himself as to the identity of the persons riding on the
scooter. The counsel for the petitioners has fairly stated that there is no such
document.
9. We have next enquired from the counsel for the petitioners whether it
was/is the plea of the petitioners that there was any reason for the respondent
DTC or any of its officials to fudge the incident aforesaid at Naraina Depot.
The counsel has again fairly stated that no such plea has been taken.
10. In the absence of there being anything to show that the challan for
triple riding without documents issued at Rohtak, Haryana at the same time
as the incident at Naraina Depot mentioned the names therein of the
petitioners after satisfying as to the identity of the petitioners and in the face
of the finding reached by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of statements of
witnesses, we, in the exercise of power of judicial review, are not inclined to
give any credence to the defence of the petitioners of the incident being false
for the reason of the petitioners at the relevant time being at Rohtak,
Haryana. The FIR as of the incident at Naraina Depot was lodged
immediately as is expected in the natural course of events and in the absence
of any plea of any reason for falsely implicating the petitioners in such
incident, we are again unable to find any merit in the case of the petitioners.
11. Else, this Court in exercise of power of judicial review is not to
interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the Inquiry Officer,
Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Tribunal particularly
when no merit is found in the ground aforesaid of challenge thereto.
12. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed; we refrain from
imposing any costs on the petitioners.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
DECEMBER 13, 2011
bs
