Hawa Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 1273 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+               Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1392/2011

Hawa Singh                                   ....Petitioner
                     Through      Mr. Sanjoy Ghose and
                                  Mr. Anuj Agrawal, Advocates.

                    VERSUS

Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.     .....Respondents
                 Through    Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advocate.

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

                                 ORDER

%                                03.03.2011
SANJIV KHANNA, J.

The petitioner Hawa Singh was awarded minor penalty of

stoppage of next due increment. By the impugned order dated 30th

November, 2010, Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short),

Principal Bench, New Delhi has upheld the penalty and dismissed the

original petition filed by the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

Tribunal and the Disciplinary Authority have failed to notice and give

due consideration to the fact that the petitioner, who is a Driver, was

not on duty and was telephonically asked to perform duty as a Driver at

16.30 hrs, and on the basis of vigilance report, action was sought to be

taken after seven months.

3. The Vigilance Team had checked the Booth Nos. A & B, Najafgarh

on 4th July, 2006. At about 18.30 hrs, Bus NO. 2638 was found to be

parked at Booth 'B' though the actual scheduled time for departure

from the said Booth was 18.00 hrs. Thus there was a delay of 30

minutes and failure on the part of the bus crew. The allegation is that

on seeing the vigilance team, the crew took the bus on its trip without

checking. The statement of Dharam Singh, ATI/Time Keeper was

recorded before the enquiry officer. The Tribunal has specifically

recorded that the checking team had reported to him at 18.15 hrs and

the bus No. 2683 had reported at the right time but went for the next

trip at 18.30 hrs. The schedule time for departure was 1800 hrs. Thus

the factum that the petitioner had reported for duty at 1630 hrs, even if

correct, was not relevant.

4. In reply to the charge-sheet dated 5th February, 2007, the

petitioner admitted that he was asked to perform duty on bus No. 2638

on 4th July, 2006 and he had come to the depot. Thereafter trips were

completed by him as mentioned on his memo. He had submitted that

there was shading out on the duty date from the depot due to traffic

jam at Najafgarh. In the departmental proceedings, on the basis of the

statement of Dharam Singh and the defence raised by the petitioner,

aforesaid penalty of stoppage of next due increment was imposed by

the disciplinary authority.

5. We agree with the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the

factual findings recorded in the disciplinary proceedings do not merit

review/reconsideration in exercise of power of judicial review. The

conclusions arrived cannot be classified as arbitrary, perverse and

based on no evidence whatsoever. We cannot as an appellate court

re-examine and re-appreciate the evidence and findings of facts.

6. We entirely agree with the findings recorded by the Tribunal and

do not find any ground to interference with the same. The writ petition

is accordingly dismissed in limine.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE March 03, 2011/kkb