Ram Avtar Tyagi vs Chairman cum MD And Ors

K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)

Through the medium of this O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following main reliefs:-

"(a) To quash and set aside the order of imposition of punishment dated 21.10.2013 issued by respondent no.3, rejection of appeals by respondent no.1 & respondent no.2 dated 23.12.2013 and 19.01.2015 respectively;

(b) To direct the respondent to release all consequential benefits to the applicant."

The factual matrix of the case, as noticed from the records, is as under:-

2.1 The applicant joined Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) - respondent organization in 1983 as a Conductor. On 10.05.2012, Annexure A-5 memorandum of charges (pp.33-34) was issued to him, which reads as under:-

"You are required to explain why disciplinary action under clause 15 (2) of the D.R.T.A. (Conditions of appointment and service) Regulation, 1952 read with Section 4 (a) of Road Transport Laws (Amendment) Act, 1971 should not be taken against you for the following irregularities:

On 16.01.2010, while you deputed on duty no.939/13-A, having the reporting time as 14.10 hrs. but you got recorded the reporting time as 13:00 - 13:20 hrs. on your way bill without specific reason and adversely got your tickets endorsed in the way bill of five other conductors.

On dated 22.06.2010, you deputed on duty 939/13-A, when you got your tickets endorsed in the way bill of conductors B.Nos. 22791, 23147 & conductor B.No.17690 and not offering your services according to the scheduled trips of your own duty.

You sold your tickets in the waybill of other Conductors without assigning any reason and showing bogus line duty mislead the Corporation by the way.

Your above said act amount to fraud with an intention to damage the clear image of the Corporation.

You are violating the Delhi Transport Corporation Disciplinary and Conduct rule 19 (b), (f), (k) & (m) by way of you above said act.

A copy of reporter Sh. Rajvir Singh, Store Keeper and checking Team mentioning all the charges is enclosed here with. Any final action taken against you will as per your past service record.

If you want a personal hearing then apply for the same. Your request for personal hearing should reach to the under signed with in a period of 10 days of receipt of this Charge-Sheet. If you are interested for any documents relevant to answer this Charge-Sheet, you may apply for the same within 24 hours of receiving this charge-sheets. If you fail to report the undersigned about your receiving of this Charge-Sheet with 24 hours of receiving or after 10 days on receiving failed to submit any reply, the undersigned will presume that you have nothing to say on the charges. Thereafter a disciplinary action will initiate against you without even informing you."

2.3 The applicant submitted his reply to the said charge memorandum vide  Annexure  A-6  letter  16.10.2012.  Not  satisfied  with  his  reply,  the competent authority, i.e., the Depot Manager, decided to start disciplinary enquiry (DE) proceedings against the applicant. Accordingly, the DE was set  in  motion.  The  applicant  participated  in  the  DE  proceedings.  The inquiry officer (IO) submitted his Annexure A-7 report. In paragraph 20 of the report, the IO has discussed the matter, which is reproduced below:-

"20. To ascertain the truth in respect of the above statement of the charged employee, the documents placed in the case file have been scrutinized whereupon an aspect came to notice that on dated 16.01.2010, charged employee deposited Rs.605/- in the depot in lieu of the sale of tickets and sold his tickets in five buses. When on dated 22. 06.2010, the charged employee deposited Rs.400/- and sold out his tickets in three buses. In the case file, none of the documents found which indicates that the depot authorities have taken any action against the charged employee with regard to his duties in disputes or taken any action on depositing less amount in lieu of sale of tickets. Hence, the employee reported on both the alleged dates in depot and performed his duties as per orders of the depot officer and he did not avail any benefit of bogus attendance. But it does not mean that the report of the reporters is wrong. As per records, both the days the charged employee had submitted his way bill showing special duties in his way-bill on the contrary as per his own deposition he did not perform duties on line. It came to notice that during those days some bogus out shedding was going on in the said depot. In the present case, it also appeared that the duties of advance was taken from the concerned employee and was shown on line duties, may be the part of the irregularities being committed by the depot authorities. But the charged employee had to object against the same which he did not do so. As such, this misconduct on the part of the charged employee can not be ruled out."

The IO finally concluded in his report that the applicant is not fully faulty rather he is partly faulty of the charges levelled.

2.4 Acting on the IO"s report, the disciplinary authority, vide his impugned Annexure A-1 order dated 21.10.2013, imposed the penalty of "stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect" on the applicant.

2.5 The applicant preferred an appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority before the departmental appellate authority, i.e., Regional Manager (East). The appellate authority, vide its impugned Annexure A-2 order dated 27.12.2013, dismissed the appeal.

2.6 The applicant thereafter filed a mercy appeal before the Chairman-cum-Director, DTC, which was dismissed by the said authority vide his Annexure A-3 order dated 19.01.2015.

Aggrieved by the impugned Annexures A-1, A-2 & A-3 orders, the applicant has filed the instant O.A. praying for the reliefs as indicated in paragraph (1) above.

In support of the reliefs claimed, the applicant has broadly pleaded the following grounds:-

a) The authorities did not apply their mind in passing the impugned orders and failed to notice that frivolous charges had been levelled against the applicant of selling out his tickets in some other buses instead of performing the assigned duty.

b) Despite the IO concluding in his report that the charges were partly proved, the disciplinary authority chose to impose a very harsh penalty of "stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect" on the applicant.

c) The IO submitted his report in a great hurry without following the laid down procedure, including summoning and examining the relevant witnesses and considering factual aspects. The IO has not elaborated as to how the charges are partly proved.

Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondents entered appearance and filed their reply, in which they have broadly averred as under:-

4.1 On scrutiny of record, the vigilance team found that the applicant was deputed on 16.01.2010 on duty No.939/13-A having the reporting time as 14:10 hours. He, however, without any specific reason, altered the reporting time on his way bill as 13:00 - 13:20 hours and further got his tickets endorsed in the way bill of 5 other Conductors. The trip time, as shown in his own way bill, did not warrant the possibility of issuing tickets to the commuters of other mentioned 5 duties operating on different routes.

4.2 Although the applicant was on duty on 22.06.2010 as a second Conductor on No.939/13-A, but he had not shown sale of tickets on the way bills of Conductor of No.205/18A, B.No.22741, Conductor of No.347/23A B.No.23147 and Conductor of No.623/2A, B.No.17690. On comparing the trips conducted, as shown in the duty memo, with the trips shown by the applicant himself on his way bill, it was found that they were not matching.

4.3 The applicant was given a duty memo (Annexure A-4 (colly.) (p.128), in which the route indicated was "Anand Vihar" to "Mangol Puri "S" Block" and the reporting time was indicated as "14:50 / 14:44 hours". The same duty memo was also given to the Driver. However, it was noticed that on the copy of duty memo given to the applicant, the route was altered as "New Seema Puri" to "Railway Station" and the reporting was also altered as "13:00/13:20 hours". This document would also establish that the applicant was put on regular duty and that he was not put as "spare" on that day.

4.4 For his misdemeanour, the applicant was issued a charge memorandum and subjected to DE proceedings and finally has been punished vide the impugned orders.

On completion of pleadings, the case was taken up for hearing the arguments on 08.05.2018. Arguments of Dr. N Gautam, learned counsel for applicant and that of Ms. Arati Mahajan Shedha, learned counsel for respondents were heard.

We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the pleadings.

It is trite law that the scope of judicial review in DE proceedings is highly limited. Judicial review is normally resorted to only in following circumstances:

(a) Principles of natural justice have not been followed in the conduct of DE proceedings,

(b) Incompetent authorities have issued the charge memorandum and passed the penalty orders,

(c) The penalty orders have been passed in violation of relevant laws/rules; and

(d) The punishment inflicted is disproportionate to the offence committed.

The above principles have been enshrined in the following judgments of Hon"ble Supreme Court:

(i) Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran,(2015) 2 SCC 610

(ii) Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India & others, (1987) 4 SCC 611; and

(iii) Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & others, JT 1998 (8) SC 603.

In the present case, we find that the principles laid down by the Hon"ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments have been followed.

The principles of natural justice have been observed at every stage in the conduct of the DE proceedings and the applicant has participated in it. The charges against the applicant have been found to be partly proved by the IO and impugned orders have been passed by the competent authorities on the basis of the findings of IO in his report. We would like to observe that the punishment of "stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect" on the applicant is not disproportionate to the offence committed.

In the conspectus, we do not find any merit in this O.A. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs.