Jai Pal Singh vs Dtc
2012 Latest Caselaw 1288 Del

$~11
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Judgment delivered on 24.02.2012

+      W.P.(C) 7853/2010


JAI PAL SINGH                                                 ...      Petitioner

                                       versus

DTC                                                    ....       Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner   :      Mr M.K.Bhardwaj
For the Respondent   :      None

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                          JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.8.2009 passed

by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, in T.A.No. 1314/2009. Before

the Tribunal, the petitioner was aggrieved by the fact that he had been dismissed

from service on account of his conviction under Section 279/304A IPC on account

of rash and negligent driving. The petitioner was driving a DTC bus which hit a

stationary cylist from behind. As a result, the pillion rider on the cycle fell down

and ultimately died.

2. The Tribunal has gone into all the details of the case and ultimately held

that the dismissal order be quashed on account of two circulars dated 05.08.1955

and 24.11.1954. However, as regards backwages, the Tribunal held that the

petitioner would be entitled to only 25% wages. It was also held by the Tribunal

that for the purpose of calculation of backwages, the wages the petitioner was

getting at the time of dismissal need to be taken into account.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner urges before us that the Tribunal ought

to have been reinstated the petitioner with full backwages. We feel that there is

absolutely no reason as to why the Tribunal's order directing 25% backwages

ought to be interfered with. During the period between the dismissal and

reinstatement, the petitioner was obviously not working with DTC. The fact that

the Tribunal has given 25% of the backwages is more than sufficient considering

the circumstances of the case including the fact that he had been convicted by the

Criminal Court under Section 279/304A IPC for rash and negligent driving. The

conviction has also been maintained by the Sessions Court in appeal.

4. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner next

contended that the calculation of backwages should not be done on the basis of the

wages that the petitioner was getting at the time of his dismissal, but that it should

be on the basis of average emoluments. Unfortunately, we do not agree with the

learned counsel even on this aspect of the matter. The view taken by the Tribunal

cannot be said to be a perverse view. This being a case of judicial review, there is

absolutely no scope for substituting our view even if we had a view contrary to the

view taken by the Tribunal in place of that of the Tribunal. Considering these

circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K.JAIN, J FEBRUARY 24, 2012 'sn'