Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ashok Kumar vs Delhi Transport Corporation, Govt. Of ... on 20 February, 2020
1 OA 1360/2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 1360/2018
This the 20th day of February, 2020
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
Ashok Kumar, Aged-62 years, Accountant,Group-'C'
S/o Sh. Man Phul Singh,
Add: House No. B-65/7, Gali No. 11,
Sewak Ram Park, near Metro Station Dwarika Morh,
New Delhi-110059.
(M. 9213298974).
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Jagdish Chandra Kundlia)
VERSUS
1. Delhi Transport Corporation,
Through its Chairman-cum-M.D.,
H.Q. I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
2. Sh. Akash Malik, Manager (T/M),
(The then Depot Manager, Nangloi Depot),
Depot Manager Ghuman Hera,
DTC Ghuman Hera Depot, Delhi-110073.
3. Sh. Manohar Lal, Ex Manager (Admin.),
(The then Enquiry Officer North),
V & P.O. Narela,
Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. Umesh Joshi)
2 OA 1360/2018
ORDER (Oral)
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J):
In the present Original Application, following reliefs have been sought:-
"(i) To quash the orders of punishment dated inflicted 08.03.2017 (Annexure A-1, page-16).
(ii) To quash the orders of the appellate authority of rejection of the appeal of the applicant dated 06.06.2017, (Annexure A-2, Page-17).
(iii) To quash the charge sheet dated 08.12.2015, Annexure A-13, Page-56 to 58.
(iv) To quash all the enquiry proceedings proceeded by the enquiry officer in the matter including the enquiry conclusion, (Annexure A-16, Page-90 to 95).
(v) To quash Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 21.12.2017 (Annexure A-17, Page-99).
(vi) To grant all consequential benefits to applicant including his due promotion ordered vide orders on 28.07.2015 (Annexure A-5, page-29).
(vii) To grant interest on delayed payments of post retirement dues of the applicant @ 12% per annum/as deem suitable to Hon'ble Tribunal.
(viii) To grant any other relief/s which the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of the justice."
2. The applicant has been issued charge sheet by the respondents on 29.07.2015. Thereafter, enquiry proceedings were started on 08.10.2015 and the charge sheet dated 29.07.2015 was modified and served upon the applicant on 08.12.2015. The applicant replied to the charge sheet on 11.12.2015 and departmental enquiry has been initiated against 3 OA 1360/2018 him on 18.12.2015 by appointing an Enquiry Officer, who has submitted his report after culmination of proceedings. Thereafter, on attaining the age of superannuation, the applicant retired from his services on 31.12.2015. On 08.03.2017, punishment of "Three Stage Down in his pay scale (on the post from which he was retired)" was imposed upon him. The applicant has preferred an appeal against it on 20.03.2017 and the same was also rejected on 06.06.2017.
3. The charge sheet was issued against the applicant on the basis of a complaint made by him to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi regarding practice of child labour by one Smt. Durgesh Nandini, who is living nearby his house along with other official of DTC. After due registration of FIR by the concerned police, a closure report has been submitted before the concerned Magistrate, who has also given his verdict on 21.06.2013, acquitting the accused (Smt. Durgesh Nandini).
4. In the present OA, the applicant has not raised any procedural lapse in the enquiry. He submitted that from information received from another resident, he made a complaint to the concerned Chief Justice of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and ultimately, the 4 OA 1360/2018 officials of NGO "Salam Balak" rescued the child from Flat No. 1, DTC Shadipur Colony occupied by Smt. Durgesh Nandini and initiated further proceedings.
5. In a nutshell, the applicant submitted that purely on the basis of a complaint received by him, he being the President of the Resident Welfare Association, on the eve of his retirement, disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him just to take away his promotion to the post of Deputy Manager.
6. Notices were issued by this Tribunal. Respondents put appearance and filed their detailed reply.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to para 3 of the counter reply, which reads as under:-
"3. xxx xxx xxx
(a) The Applicant along with his associates had made a complaint dated 06.04.2011 to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court against Smt. Durgesh Nandini about keeping a child bonded labour aged about 9-10 yrs. at her residence in DTC Shadipur Colony, Delhi.
(b) The Applicant along with his associates had also lodged a FIR No. 73 dated 13.4.2011 against Smt. Durgesh Nandini in the Police Station, Ranjit Nagar in this regard. Subsequently, an application dated 19.09.2011 was filed in the Hon'ble Court for cancellation bail of Smt. Durgesh Nandini.
(c) The Applicant had also submitted a representation dated 26.5.11 in the office of Chief 5 OA 1360/2018 Minister (PGC), GNCTD for transfer of Smt. Durgesh Nandini, D.M, SPD.
(d) The Applicant along with the associates had also filed a protest petition in the Tis Hazari Court on 02.11.2011 against cancellation report of the Police Authorities taking into consideration that no offence was committed by the said officer. The Hon'ble Court further mentioned that the allegations made against the accused (Smt. Durgesh Nandini) may be motivated out of some sort of rivalries between the Complainant and the accused."
[ During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents handed over a copy of the closure report submitted before the concerned Magistrate. Learned ACMM (West)/Delhi on 21.06.2013, has observed as follows:-
"xxx xxx xxx The child was aged 17 years (as per his own school records.) In his bone test, he was opined to be 14/15 years old. Which shows that he was having sufficient age to understand what he was stating before ld. SDM Patel Nager, therefore, the allegations made by the complainants cannot stand before the statement given by the child himself. The allegations made against the accused may be motivated out of some sort of rivalries between the complainants and the accused. But the statement given by the child and his father and uncle cannot be assumed to be motivated.
9. In view of my aforesaid findings and observations, I do come to the conclusion that no offence was committed in this case and hence, cancellation report is accepted and Protest petition is dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room as per rules."
8. After hearing both the parties at length, this Tribunal is of the view, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in numerous cases, that the Tribunal cannot 6 OA 1360/2018 assume the role of the Appellate Authority/ Disciplinary Authority/Enquiry Officer. There is a clear admission on the part of the applicant that he has received the complaint in which it is clearly written that child bonded labour was 9-10 years of age, being employed by Smt. Durgesh Nandini in her house Flat No.1, Shadipur Colony. Once the closure report was submitted after due verification, where it was found that he was about 17 years of age, criminal case has been closed.
9. During the course of the argument, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the post to which the applicant was promoted was not under the authority which has imposed the punishment. However, such ground not having been taken anywhere by the applicant, this Tribunal is not taking any cognizance of that.
10. The applicant's contention is that being the President of the Society, he is duty bound to forward such a complaint received by him for further action. He, however, has not placed any document on record to show that the child labour was 9/10 years of age, who was working with Smt. Durgesh Nandini. It means, without verifying the factual aspect, just being the President of the Society, he forwarded the 7 OA 1360/2018 complaint for further action even without assuming as to what could be the repercussion of such complaint against senior employees. We are of this view that there is no merit in this case and it is liable to be dismissed.
11. In view of the aforesaid, OA stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (Ashish Kalia) Member (A) Member (J) /akshaya/