Jai Pal Singh vs DTC

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.—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 u/s 279/304A IPC on account of rash and negligent driving. The petitioner was driving a DTC bus which hit a stationary cyclist from behind. As a result, the pillion rider on the cycle fell down and ultimately died.

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.

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 u/s 279/304A IPC for rash and negligent driving. The conviction has also been maintained by the Sessions Court in appeal.

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.