Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Naresh Kumar vs Delhi Transport Corporation, Govt. Of ... on 20 December, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. No. 1597/2015
Reserved on : 14.12.2016
Pronounced on : 20.12.2016
Hon'ble Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A)
Naresh Kumar, Driver
S/o Shri Dharam Pal Singh,
R/o Village & P.O. Luhari,
Tehsil & P.S. Baraut,
District Baghpat, U.P.
Group 'C', Aged about 37 years. .. Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Sunny Chaudhary with Shri Manoj Kumar)
Versus
1. Delhi Transport Corporation
Through its Chairman,
Head Office, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
2. The Manager (PLD),
Delhi Transport Corporation
Head Office, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
3. The Depot Manager,
Delhi Transport Corporation
Nand Nagri Depot, Delhi. .. Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Manish Garg)
ORDER
Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A) The applicant applied for the post of Driver in Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) in the year 2008. He cleared the 2 OA 1597/2015 written test, trade test and was declared medically fit. He was offered appointment to the post of Driver consequent upon his selection by the DSSSB. He accepted the said offer and thereafter was sent for training for four weeks at DTC Training School.
2. On successful completion of four weeks training, he was appointed as Driver w.e.f. 14.07.2010 vide order dated 12.07.2010. The applicant received a communication dated 19.10.2010 from the respondents asking him to appear for a medical examination. Thereafter, he was declared 'unfit' due to left elbow defect, after he had been declared medically 'fit' by Rao Tula Ram Hospital. He was terminated from service vide order dated 20.05.2011 on the ground of being medically 'unfit'.
3. Being aggrieved by this termination order, the applicant approached this Tribunal in O.A. No.2693/2011. Vide order dated 22.02.2012, the Tribunal directed the respondents to medically re-examine the applicant in some well equipped hospital of the choice of respondents.
4. This order dated 22.02.2012 was challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No.3078/2012. The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 13.08.2013. The Tribunal, while disposing of the matter, had directed the respondents that the 3 OA 1597/2015 details of material/information on the basis of which the respondents arrived at a conclusion that the applicant is in possession of invalid driving licence shall be communicated to the applicant. The Hon'ble High Court in its order passed the following direction in connection with the driving licence issue:
"8. The second direction is to make it known to the respondent as to what is the fact on which it is being opined that respondent's driving licence is invalid.
9. We concur with the reasoning of the Tribunal for the reason to label something as invalid is to reach a conclusion. The fact or the material on basis whereof the conclusion of invalidity is drawn needs to be communicated".
5. The respondents, thereafter, issued order dated 05.08.2014 holding that the applicant has been declared 'fit' medically but, on the other hand, stated that his driving licence is "Not valid for National Capital Territory", as already conveyed. He was, therefore, informed through this letter that since the driving licence of the applicant is invalid, the clearance by a Medical Board may not entitle him for restoring his services. Therefore, it may not be feasible to consider his case for appointment in DTC to the post of driver.
6. It is submitted by the applicant that he applied for renewal of his driving licence on 27.07.2014 and the Licencing Authority issued him a new computerized driving licence, which is valid in Uttar Pradesh and National Capital Territory [(U.P.) (NT+T)]. 4 OA 1597/2015
7. Learned counsel for the respondents argued as follows:
(i) In the case of Rajeev Awasthi vs. Union of India & ors., CW No.3436/1998 dated 09.12.2002, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had made certain specific directions regarding who shall be allowed to drive heavy vehicles in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The observation of the Hon'ble High Court is as under:
"Even if Section 13 allows a driving licence issued by any authority in India to be effective throughout India, yet keeping in view the peculiar traffic conditions prevailing in Delhi stringent conditions on permit-holders of heavy transport vehicles need to be imposed which will ensure that heavy vehicles transiting through Delhi or being driven in Delhi conform to road safety norms. A compulsory condition which needs to be incorporated is that in case a heavy vehicle transits through Delhi or is being driven in Delhi it will be driven by a person who has undergone training and refresher course prescribed by the Transport Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi and shall possess a certificate to that effect from the Training and Driving Institute, Loni or any other institute specified by the concerned authorities."
(ii) Thereafter, a letter was issued by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways for implementation of orders of the Hon'ble High Court regarding transit of heavy vehicles in Delhi as well as certain other issues and all the State Govts. and Union Territories were asked to act upon this. This letter dated 07.01.2004 reads as follows:
"I am directed to forward herewith a copy each of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's orders dated 9.12.2002 and 14.11.2003 on the subject noted above wherein Hon'ble High Court have inter-alia directed as follows:-5 OA 1597/2015
"In case a heavy vehicle transits through Delhi are being driven in Delhi it will be driven by a person who has undergone training and refresher course prescribed by the Transport Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi and shall possess a certificate to that effect from the Training and Driving Institute, Loni or any other institute specified by the concerned authorities".
Further in its order dated 14th November, 2003 the Court has clarified that:
"the Government only has to specify the institute, even if the institute is running in Himachal Pradesh which is approved for the purposes of giving training to the drivers. The drivers who are keen to drive their vehicles in Delhi are required to get the approval from the Government of NCT of Delhi. It will be for the applicant to approach the Government of NCT of Delhi in this behalf and get its approval".
Hon'ble High Court have further directed that the Transport Authorities of the States/Union Territories shall incorporate a condition to the following effect in the ....being issued or renewed to the owners of heavy vehicles;
"In case a heavy vehicle is to transit through Delhi or is to be driven in Delhi the owner of the vehicle shall ensure that it shall be driven by a person who has undergone training and refresher course prescribed by the Transport Department of Government of NCT of Delhi and is in possession of a certificate to that effect from the training and driving institute, Loni or any other institute specified by the Government of NCT of Delhi or its State Transport Authority".
Appropriate action in this regard may be taken by States/Union Territories".
It is stated that the licence of the applicant, which he submitted at the time of application and issued by Motor Licencing Authority's office, Baghpat had a stamp on the licence "Not valid for National Capital Territory."
6OA 1597/2015
(iii) The Baghpat Authority in reply to an RTI application of the applicant stated as follows:
For convenience, English translation of the above is as follows:
"1. With respect to the stamp of 'Not valid for National Capital Territory' stamped on the heavy vehicle licence, it is informed that the same was imprinted on the licence in view of the letter No.RT-11021/91/2002-MBL dated 7.1.2004 and the same is treated as valid for driving in the National Capital Region after getting a certificate from an authorized driving training institution situated in National Capital Territory.
2. At present District Baghpat lies under National Capital Territory, therefore, presently the driving licence does not bear the said stamp."
This primarily means that according to order dated 07.01.2004 cited above, the stamp of "Not valid for National Capital Territory" used to be put by the Baghpat Authority and only after getting a certificate from an authorized driving training institution situated in National Capital Territory, a driver could be permitted to drive in the NCR region. Para 2 of the letter states 7 OA 1597/2015 that since, at present, Baghpat is within the NCR Region, such an endorsement is not being made on the licence any more. The learned counsel tried to distinguish that National Capital Region is different from the National Capital Territory of Delhi and even now for permission to drive in the National Capital Territory of Delhi, the applicant has to have the following:
(a) Certificate of 4 weeks training;
(b) A specialized refresher course from an institute recognized by the respondents.
The learned counsel for the respondents further drew our attention to the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and specifically to Rule 14(e) dealing with the application for a driving licence, which provides as follows:
"14(e) A driving certificate in Form 5 issued by the school or establishment from where the applicant received instruction, if any."
It is stated that the applicant did not have this certificate in Form 5, which was a 4 weeks training. The learned counsel states that as per the printout from the website of the Institute of Driving, Training & Research (A collaborative of State Govt. and Maruti Suzuki), the entry is as follows:
GENERAL DRIVING TRAINING COURSES (A to D) xxx xxx xxx (E) Heavy Commercial 4 weeks Valid Learner's licence Vehicle for the category as applicable It is stated that it would be seen that for heavy commercial vehicles, the training period is 4 weeks.8 OA 1597/2015
8. In short, the respondents' argument is that at the time of appointment, the applicant did not possess this 4 weeks training certificate, and in accordance with circular dated 07.01.2004, his driving licence issued by MLO, Baghpat also carried the endorsement "Not valid for National Capital Territory". Thus, he did not possess a valid licence at the time of his appointment. Since he did not possess the 4 weeks training as well as refresher course, as required, hence, he could not be considered to be appointed as a Driver in DTC.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Alluddin vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors., in which the following observations are recorded:
"It had also examined Mr. R. K. Tiwari from Licensing Authority, Meerut. Mr. Tiwari testified that they had issued a licence in the name of Respondent No.1/driver. The same was not valid in Delhi. They issue driving licence valid in Delhi only when the licence holder produces a training certificate from a specified institute. Driver of the offending vehicle was not supposed to drive the vehicle in Delhi. I find on record certified copies of the criminal record. It contains driving licence for previous period i.e. 11.12.02 to 10.12.05. It clearly contains stamp to the effect "it was not valid in Delhi". Additionally, we can draw presumption against Respondent No.2 because he did not comply with notice U/o 12 rule-8 that the vehicle was not carrying valid permit for Delhi on the date of accident. "
5. xxx xxx xxx
6. Undoubtedly, the driving license bears an endorsement that it is not valid for purpose of National Capital Territory of Delhi. It is stated that this endorsement had to be made by the 9 OA 1597/2015 said authority in view of directions of this Court in orders dated 09.12.2002 & 14.11.2003 in Civil Writ petition no.3436/1998 (Rajeev Awasthi Vs. UOI & Ors.). The reasons why there was an inhibition against the driving license to be held good and valid for National Capital Territory of Delhi are because the licensing authorities were asked not to issue driving licenses, unless the license holder obtains a certificate of training from the specified institute. This, however, does not mean that the driving licenses issued by the competent authority of another State will not be a proof of confirmation as to the competence of the driver to drive, not the least lead to the assumption that the driver would not have had the requisite capacity to drive the motor vehicle on roads within National Capital Territory of Delhi to the effect that negligence on his part leading to the accident from which a claim for compensation arises is bound to be inferred."
10. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out the following :
(i) Baghpat was included in National Capital Region in the very act of 1985, viz. the National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985, in which "National Capital Region" has been defined as the areas specified in the Schedule and in this Schedule, under 'Uttar Pradesh', Baghpat has been mentioned. Therefore, according to the applicant, Baghpat was always part of the National Capital Region.
(ii) Section 14 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 relates to application for a driving licence. That means, it is meant for those people who are applying for a driving licence and not those who already have a driving licence, as the applicant. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, 14(e) and driving certificate in Form 5 is not relevant at all.10 OA 1597/2015
(iii) the entry cited by the learned counsel for the respondents in the training programme in the Institute of Driving, Training and Research, cited above, again is meant for those who have a learner licence and are applying for a regular licence. In the same training programme, for refresher course and specialized course meant for permanent licence holders, the following is provided:
REFRESHER COURSE (A & B) xxx xxx xxx (C) Course for HMV 2 days Valid Permanent licence Drivers for the category as applicable SPECIFIED COURSES (A) xxx xxx xxx (B) Public Service 2 days Valid Licence for Vehicle Badge category of vehicle for Training which Badge is desired.
(iv) the applicant has undergone the two days' training for PSV badge in the Institute of Driving Training & Research managed by Maruti Udyog Ltd., Loni, which is an authorized training institute of Transport Department, N.C.T. of Delhi. This certificate was issued on 12.05.2010, i.e. before his appointment to the post of Driver.
(v) learned counsel for the applicant placed before us the certificate obtained by him for training on driving issued by DTC and Tata Motors Ltd. certifying that the applicant has undergone 5 days' training programme on driving for 1623 CNG Low Entry Bus and he has acquired adequate knowledge on vehicle, driving 11 OA 1597/2015 controls, safety and driving skills. This certificate is dated 23.07.2010.
(vi) the applicant has successfully completed 4 weeks training by DTC Training School, Nand Nagri Depot Complex.
(vii) letter dated 01.12.2014 issued by Transport Authority, Baghpat to the applicant also states that at present, because Baghpat is within NCR region, the endorsement "Not valid for National Capital Territory" is no longer been put on the licences.
11. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the relevant rules and judgments cited by them.
12. The Hon'ble High Court in CW 3436/1998 had given certain directions regarding who should be permitted to drive heavy motor vehicles in the NCT of Delhi. Based on this judgment, the Ministry of Transport, Govt. of India, advised all State Govts. to abide by the directions of the Hon'ble High Court and ensure that proper training course and refresher course has been undergone successfully by the driver before he can be permitted to drive in the National Capital Territory region. As a result, the Baghpat authority had put the endorsement "Not valid for National Capital Territory" in the applicant's licence. It is not specified in the letter dated 07.01.2004 regarding the duration of the training as well as the refresher course.
12OA 1597/2015
13. Learned counsel for the respondents tried to rely on Section 14 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the website of Institute of Driving, Training & Research to assert that the applicant has not undergone the 4 weeks' training. As regards the refresher course, there is no dispute as the applicant has done 2 days' refresher course in Public Service Vehicle from a recognized institute of Loni. In fact, he has also done 5 days' course to drive low entry bus from another recognised institute of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Tata Motors. Regarding the 4 weeks' training, as is clear from the training programme and Rule 14, the 4 weeks' training is for those candidates, who are applying for a licence and have a learner licence. In the case of the applicant, since he already has a valid licence, this requirement of 4 weeks' training is not made out. In any case, he has undergone the 4 weeks' training from the DTC Training School, before he was formally appointed on 14.07.2010.
14. Therefore, in our view, there is no doubt at all that the applicant is fully trained and equipped to drive DTC buses in the NCT of Delhi. Even if, for arguments sake, we were to consider the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant may be entitled to drive all-over India and anywhere in NCR other than in NCT, the applicant having completed the training and refresher course, nothing can be held against him. 13 OA 1597/2015 We would like to clarify that letter dated 01.12.2014 of Transport Authority, Baghpat clearly states that this certificate is no longer required as Baghpat is now within the NCR region and no distinction between the NCR and NCT has been made out in this letter.
15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that the applicant has been wrongly denied appointment as a Driver in DTC and made to undergo this litigation for no fault of his. We, therefore, allow this O.A. Order dated 05.08.2014 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service from the date he was originally appointed with all consequential benefits, such as back wages, promotion, seniority, etc. along with an interest @ 9%. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Before we part, we would like to express our deep appreciation on the excellent assistance by both the applicant and respondents' counsel and the hard work undertaken by them to place all relevant facts before us.
(P.K. BASU) (V. AJAY KUMAR) Member (A) Member (J) /Jyoti/