Delhi District Court
B. P. S. Yadav vs Executive Committee Of Asrtu & Ors. on 21 May, 2015
B. P. S. Yadav Vs Executive Committee of ASRTU & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE02 (SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Presided Over by: Sh. Vishal Pahuja
In the matter of :
CS No.338/14
Sh. B. P. S. Yadav,
S/o Sh. Karan Singh,
R/o 33, M. I. G. DDA Flats,
Sector A9, PocketI, GRPI,
Narela, Delhi - 110040 ....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Executive Committee of Association,
of State Road Transport Undertakings,
Through its Executive Director,
7/6, Sirifort Institutional Area,
Khel Gaon Marg,
New Delhi - 110049
2. Executive Director,
Association of State Road Transport Undertakings,
Through its Executive Director,
7/6, Sirifort Institutional Area,
Khel Gaon Marg,
New Delhi - 110049 ....Defendants
Date of Institution : 24.09.2009
Date of Reserving Judgment : 21.05.2015
Date of Decision : 21.05.2015
Final Decision : Dismissed
J U D G M E N T
( Suit for declaration and mandatory injunction) CS No. 338/14 Page 1 of 6 B. P. S. Yadav Vs Executive Committee of ASRTU & Ors.
1. This is a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against the defendants.
2. Briefly stated, case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is working with the defendant as Technical Officer at Burari of Third Party Technical Inspections. That on 30.08.2008, plaintiff received a suspension letter bearing no.ASRTU/ED/006/3104 dated 29.08.2008 issued by the defendant. That the suspension of the plaintiff is based on the low percentage of the failure vehicle in which period, the plaintiff has no power to pass or fail the vehicles and the suspension letter has been issued malafidely only with an intention to save the authority who has power to pass and fail the vehicle. That the plaintiff has been suspended without supplying any charge sheet and without giving any opportunity to be heard or to produce any explanation. That plaintiff has given the representation to the Appellate Authority on 26.03.2009 and 22.04.2009 but all in vain. That plaintiff is entitled for the payment of subsistence allowances as per 6th Central Pay Commission and plaintiff has given the representation to the defendants on 31.01.2009 and 05.03.2009 but the defendants are not making the payment according to the 6th pay commission. That despite the reminders to the defendants, defendants are not considering the reminders of the plaintiff nor withdrawing the suspension orders deliberately. Hence, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff.
3. Upon service of the summons, defendants appeared and filed its WS and taken the defence that plaintiff has no cause of action. That the suit of the plaintiff has become infructuous in the light of order passed by the competent authority dated 22.12.2009.
CS No. 338/14 Page 2 of 6B. P. S. Yadav Vs Executive Committee of ASRTU & Ors.
Thus, on the above said grounds the defendants prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
4. No replication has been filed by the plaintiff.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 19.09.2011 and issue no.1 was re framed vide order dated 03.04.2013:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration as prayed for in prayer clause (a)? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for in prayer no. B? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a relief claim in prayer no.C? OPP
4. Whether the present suit of the plaintiff has become infructuous for non survival of cause of action and is liable to be dismissed? OPD
5. Relief, if any.
6. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 by tendering his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He also relied upon documents Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/F. Plaintiff also examined three more witness namely Sh. Mahender Singh Dahiya, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar and Sh.Rakesh Kumar as PW2, PW3 and PW4 and thereafter, plaintiff closed his evidence.
Defendants on the other hand, examined one witness namely Sh. Prasanta Kumar Samal as DW1 who tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.DW1/1. He relied upon CS No. 338/14 Page 3 of 6 B. P. S. Yadav Vs Executive Committee of ASRTU & Ors.
documents Ex.DW1/1 to Ex.DW1/5, Ex.Mark B to Ex.Mark D and thereafter, defendants closed its evidence.
7. I have heard the contentions of both the sides and also gone through the record carefully. My issuewise findings are as under:
ISSUE NO.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration as prayed for in prayer clause (a)? OPP
8. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The only claim by the plaintiff is that the defendants have issued suspension letter in question without application of mind and without giving any show cause notice to the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel further argued that by leading the evidence plaintiff has been able to prove that he was not incharge of the third party inspection unit so he has been wrongly suspended which should be declared illegal and unconstitutional.
Admittedly, both the parties to this suit are private parties and there cannot be enforcement of contract being barred by provision 14 (1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act. Although, this Court has no jurisdiction to declare the suspension illegal or unconstitutional. However, the procedure followed can always be challenged if violative of principle of natural justice. Here the plaintiff has claimed that he was not provided with the charge sheet nor he was served any show cause notice. Plaintiff has not filed on record any rules and regulations that have been carried in the defendant's organization which have been violated. On the other hand, Ex.DW1/5 i.e. the suspension letter dated 29.08.2008 shows that a prima facie case was established and subject to CS No. 338/14 Page 4 of 6 B. P. S. Yadav Vs Executive Committee of ASRTU & Ors.
inquiry plaintiff was suspended which means that the authority has applied their mind. Merely, non providing of charge sheet will not be suffice to term the suspension illegal when the inquiry is still pending. Moreover, during the pendency of the suit proceedings, infact within few days of filing the present suit suspension was revoked vide order dated 22.12.2009 subject to pending inquiry. During the final arguments, Ld. Counsel for defendant filed the final report qua the said inquiry where it has been concluded that no irregularities have been committed in carrying out the third party technical inspection of CNG vehicles and no one including plaintiff was held guilty in the said inquiry. In wake of the report also the plaintiff is left with no cause of action.
Hence, this issue stands decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
ISSUES NO.2 & 3Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for in prayer no. B? OPP & Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a relief claim in prayer no.C? OPP
9. The onus to prove both this issue was upon the plaintiff. In view of the statement of the plaintiff, prayer clause (B) & (C) was dropped and the consequence thereof the issue no.2 as well as 3 were deleted vide order dated 23.03.2015.
ISSUE NO.4 Whether the present suit of the plaintiff has become infructuous for non survival of cause of action and is liable to be dismissed? OPD CS No. 338/14 Page 5 of 6 B. P. S. Yadav Vs Executive Committee of ASRTU & Ors.
10. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. In view of the findings given in issue no.1, this issue also stands decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Relief:
11. As a consequence to my findings on the above mentioned issues, suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
12. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court (Vishal Pahuja)
on 21.05.2015 CJ02 (South)/Saket Courts
New Delhi/21.05.2015
CS No. 338/14 Page 6 of 6