Delhi High Court
Rakesh Dagar vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 18 March, 2016
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9756/2015
Date of decision: 18th March, 2016
RAKESH DAGAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, Advocate.
versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Shantosh Kumar Tripathi, Standing
Counsel, DTC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner-Rakesh Dagar by this writ petition impugns order dated 1st
April, 2015, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench
(Tribunal, for short), whereby his OA No.497 of 2013 was dismissed. The
petitioner had prayed that the respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC)
should be directed to appoint him as a driver with all attendant benefits
including grant of seniority etc. from the date he had reported for training.
2. Consequent to a selection process conducted by the Delhi Subordinate
Services Selection Board, by letter dated 5th January, 2009, the petitioner was
asked to report for training. On 7th January, 2009, when the petitioner had
reported for training he was asked to fill up his particulars in a format
provided, which had a column relating to criminal cases pending against him.
The petitioner had mentioned particulars of three criminal cases pending
against him. These were, FIR No.318/2012, police station Kanjhawala under
Sections 323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC); FIR
No.1446/2006, police station Sultan Puri under Sections 323/341 IPC and
FIR No.677/2007, police station Mangol Puri under Sections 337/279 IPC.
In these circumstances, the petitioner was not allowed to join training.
3. After about two years, the petitioner made a representation dated 3rd
February, 2011, stating that the three cases stand disposed of and he should
be taken on duty. The petitioner did not receive a response, and was not
asked to join. It is obvious that the prayer and claim made by the petitioner
was not acceptable to the DTC.
4. The petitioner moved an application under the Right to Information
Act on 3rd October, 2011 seeking information. The petitioner thereafter filed
first appeal under the Right to Information Act and a further appeal before the
Central Information Commission, which was disposed of in May, 2012.
Pursuant to the last order, copies of file notings were supplied on 9th July,
2012.
5. On 6th February, 2013, the petitioner filed the aforesaid Original
Application before the Tribunal praying that he should be appointed, and
granted benefits of seniority and all other benefits. The impugned order
rejects the said prayers including the prayer for appointment.
6. It is an accepted and admitted position that the petitioner was involved
and charge-sheeted in the aforesaid three FIRs, including FIR No.677/2007,
police station Mangol Puri, which was under Sections 337/279 IPC. The
petitioner also accepts that he had pleaded guilty in this charge-sheet and was
admonished. In FIR No.1446/2006, police station Sultan Puri under Sections
323/341 IPC, also the petitioner was admonished and in addition directed to
pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings and compensation. In FIR
No.318/2012, police station Mangol Puri, offences under Sections
323/341/34 IPC were compounded and the case was accordingly disposed of.
7. In the impugned order, the Tribunal has referred to the factual matrix
and ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Police and
Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar, JT 2011 (3) SC 484.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the
decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.8094/2010, titled
Rahul Yadav Vs. CISF & Anr. dated 14th February, 2011. In this decision,
the Division Bench has drawn distinction between grave and serious offences
involving moral turpitude and other technical and insignificant cases which
are sometimes registered and then settled and disposed of. The first category
would normally, justify denial of public employment, but the same ostracism
may not be applied when the violations are trivial and insignificant.
9. The petitioner was involved and facing prosecution in three separate
FIRs at the time he was called to fill up the relevant form in January, 2009.
The first FIR was registered at police station Kanjhawala, second at police
station Sultan Puri and the third one at police station Mangol Puri. The third
FIR was under Sections 337/279 IPC, which related to traffic offences and
accident. The form required each candidate to fill-up personal details to
assess desirability and check the past antecedents. The petitioner obviously
on filling up the form was informed that he cannot be appointed. Thereafter,
he had pleaded guilty in two cases and was admonished. In the second case
i.e. FIR No.1446/2006, police station Sultan Puri, the petitioner was also
asked to deposit Rs.5,000/- as costs and compensation. In the third case,
arising from FIR No.318/2012, police station Kanjhawala, offences under
Sections 323/341/34 IPC were compounded. The aforesaid exercise in
getting the three cases disposed of, had taken more than two years. The
petitioner, no doubt, had sought information and documents under the Right
to Information Act, but this had not prevented him from approaching the
Tribunal. Thus there was delay in approaching and filing the OA before the
Tribunal.
10. It was for the petitioner to bring out and state facts to show and
establish that the acts, subject matter of the three FIRs, were trivial or
insignificant, not involving moral turpitude. Petitioner has not tried to justify
or explain the nature and character of allegations made against him, or that
the criminal case did not justify or warrant non appointment. No such attempt
was made before the Tribunal or before us.
11. Looked from all angles, including a number of different criminal cases
in which the petitioner was involved, the order of Tribunal does not require
any interference. The writ petition is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
MARCH 18, 2016
NA
