Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Jai Pal Singh on 27 May, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3711/2011
% Date of Decision: 27th May, 2011
Delhi Transport Corporation ....Petitioner
Through Mr. J.S. Bhasin, Advocate.
VERSUS
Jai Pal Singh .....Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
Delhi Transport Corporation has filed the present writ petition
impugning order dated 23rd December, 2010, allowing O.A. No.
765/2010 filed by the respondent, Jai Pal Singh.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
disciplinary authority had rightly imposed punishment of stoppage of
next two annual increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 11th
July, 2002, which was affirmed by the appellate authority by their
orders dated 5th September, 2002 and 19th November, 2009 and,
therefore, the Central Administrative Tribunal should not have
interfered.
3. The respondent is a driver with the petitioner and was served
with the chargesheet dated 21st June, 2001 in which it was alleged that
while driving a bus from Amritsar to Delhi, he had caused a fatal
accident near Rajpura.
4. The aforesaid accident had resulted in registration of FIR No.
406/2000 under Section 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code. It is
admitted position that the trial court acquitted the respondent, inter-
alia, holding that the respondent was not negligent and in fact the
deceased had suddenly crossed the road in a negligent manner. The
tribunal in this regard has relied upon Circular No. 201 dated 24th
November, 1954 that in such cases, action should not be taken against
the driver unless he is convicted by a Criminal Court. However, what is
material and relevant is the findings and statement of Diwan Singh,
Assistant Traffic Inspector who was required to inspect the spot and
submit his report. In his report, he had stated as under:-
"upon inspection of the spot it was found out that
one truck cleaner got down from the left side
door of his truck and after crossing the front side
of his truck ran to the other side for paying the toll
tax. At the same moment, bus no. 3434 had
already reached that place and that man hit the
body of the bus and fell back on the wheel of the
truck and was hit by bolt on head. In this incident
the truck cleaner was careless and he should have
crossed the road carefully and he should not have
ran in front of the bus. In this accident, our driver
was not at fault. I have nothing else to say in this
regard."
5. We are conscious of the fact that the standard of proof in
criminal proceedings is different from the standard of proof in civil
proceedings but in the present case, the Tribunal has rightly decided
the question of negligence keeping in view the finding of the criminal
court as well as statement of Diwan Singh, Assistant Traffic Inspector
who had appeared as a witness of the management. The departmental
authorities had not given due weightage and consideration to the
statement of Diwan Singh who had visited the spot and had made
enquiries. In case the respondent was negligent and had caused death,
it is obvious that the punishment of stoppage of two annual increment
with cumulative effect was grossly inadequate. Thus there is a
contradiction in the order of the authorities. It is apparent that they
too were not convinced about the allegation of negligence made
against the respondent.
6. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present
writ petition and the same is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
May 27, 2011
kkbs
