Shiv Kumar vs Delhi Transport Corporation

Sanjiv Khanna, J.—Consequent upon departmental enquiry, the Petitioner, a driver in the Delhi Transport Corporation, was awarded penalty of stoppage of next due two annual increments with cumulative effective. The Petitioner filed OA No. 3030/2009, against the said punishment but has not been successful before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (Tribunal, for short). He has now approached this Court.

The contention of the Petitioner is that the enquiry report and consequent proceedings are perverse and based on No. evidence. It is submitted that the enquiry officer and the authorities should not have relied upon the testimony of H.C. Gupta as there were cross-complaints and an FIR is registered against H.C. Gupta and the case is still pending.

The Petitioner, a driver with the Respondent corporation since 1988, was served with a charge-sheet dated 7th January, 2004. The relevant portion of the said charge-sheet reads as under:

In terms of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and Section 4(E) of Delhi Road Transport Legal (Amended) Act, 1971 read with Part 15(2) of Delhi Road Transport Authority (Terms of Appointment and Services) Rules, 1952, it is desired from you to clarify why not disciplinary action be initiated against you for the following irregularities:

As per the statement mentioned in the report dated 14.11.2003, 7.11.2003 and 10.11.2003 respectively submitted by Shri Raghubir Singh Transport Supervisor, T.N. 3580, Shri Gyan Chandra A.T.I.T.N. 20697 and Shri Chander Singh Security Hawaldar T.N. 116, on 7.11.2003 at about 1410 hours when you are entering the Depot gate after furnishing your duty along with your route and duty No. School Bus/14th Operative Bus No. 1562, at that time during the checking of the bus by the Regional Manager (N), you had not only misbehaved with him but had also manhandled him, due to which the work of checking got disturbed.

Due to the above act of yours, the duty officer Shri Gyan Chand A.T.I. had to dial 100 number and call the police. This incident was attended by the Policemen on duty in the PCR Van No. DL/CH 2765.

Your above act shows violation of Rules, disobeying of directions given by the higher officer and irresponsible behaviour towards higher officer.

Your above act is a violation of the Para No. 19(A), (H) and (M) of the standing orders of the concerned executive orders of the above duty and comes within the ambit of misbehavior as per the meaning given in the Conduct Rules of DTC employees.

The enquiry officer submitted his report recording the finding that the charges leveled against the Petitioner stand proved. The disciplinary authority after considering the reply filed by the Petitioner confirmed the proposed penalty of stoppage of next due two increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 11th June, 2007. The appeal filed by the Petitioner was not considered by the appellate authority for the reason of it being time barred. The Petitioner had also approached the grievance committee without success.

The Petitioner filed the Original Application before the tribunal after more than two years of the appellate order dated 17th September, 2007. The tribunal did not find merit in the contention that the delay was caused and was bonafidely explained as the Petitioner had filed a petition with the Grievance Committee. On merits the tribunal has held that the enquiry officer had dealt with the evidence produced by the parties including the Petitioner. It was observed that the testimony of H.C. Gupta was supported by some other evidence and it was not open for the tribunal to go into the evidence.

The enquiry officer while recording the findings has examined the evidence on record. The statement of the defence witnesses was also considered. H.C. Gupta, Sr. Manager had stated that he along with supervisory staff had gone for checking of the DTC buses at Schools. It was found that the Petitioner had reached the school, one and half hours prior to the prescribed time. Subsequently, he followed a vacant DTC bus which was without a board, without knowing that it was the same bus which was driven by the Petitioner. When the bus reached the depot gate, he questioned the Petitioner but the Petitioner became very angry, came down from his seat and misbehaved with him and had also beaten him. Van driver had seen the incident. Police was also called.

Having gone through the records and the findings recorded by the tribunal, we are of the opinion that it cannot be stated that the enquiry report is perverse and based on No. material. It is not for this Court to reappraise the evidence as an appellate forum and substitute our own view in place of the enquiry officer/disciplinary authority. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.