Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dharam Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 25 April, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.1358/2012 Wednesday, this the 25th day of April, 2012 Honble Shri M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Dharam Singh Badge No.16666 s/o late Mohan Singh r/o B-306, New Seemapuri Delhi .. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Rakesh Kumar) Versus Delhi Transport Corporation Through the Chairman DTC Headquarter IP Estate, New Delhi ..Respondent O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri M. L. Chauhan:
The present OA has been filed against the order dated 28.5.1999, which is a show cause notice, whereby the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon him and the applicant was directed to file reply within 72 hours from the date of receipt of the order. It appears that the penalty so proposed has been confirmed by the appropriate authority. However, the applicant has not placed on record copy of other order on record based upon the aforesaid order dated 28.5.1999.
2. Be that as it may, the grievance of the applicant in this OA is that the aforesaid penalty order is required to be quashed and set aside. The basis for quashing the aforesaid order is that the applicant has been acquitted by the trial court for the same charges.
3. Before deciding this issue, few facts may be noticed. The applicant, who was working as Driver with the respondent Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), was issued the charge sheet dated 31.3.1999 whereby the charge leveled against the applicant was that while on duty on 6.3.1999 on bus No.1946 from Delhi to Badayu / route No.3, the applicant on way to Delhi to Badayu when reached at village Usmanpur around 13.30 had crossed the bus to the road and hit a pedestrian from left side, who died on the spot. Police has made challan under Sections 279/304-A IPC and registered under FIR No.31/99 and CC No.54/99. The bus received damage, which is estimated to cost of `6500/- and this accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the applicant. Based on these allegations, the inquiry was conducted and the inquiry officer held the charge proved. At this stage, it will be relevant to reproduce the findings/conclusion recorded by the inquiry officer in his report, which thus read:-
1. Prosecution Witness Sh. R.P. Singh, ATI has confirmed in the enquiry proceeding that on 06.03.99 on bus no.1946, Delhi Badayu route no.3 at 13.30 near about Usmanpur Village meet an accident with an old person in which he was died on spot. In police station when meet to the staff they told him that there was a bull cart was going on the road and a man was passing through the road and came before the bus and meet accident due to which he fell down and died. The charged employee in his final Statement said that when his bus reached near the bull cart that time a bold person was going nearby the bull cart and the bull suddenly nod his head towards the old man consequently the old man without seeing anything run towards the road and the driver tried his best level to save him but the left side of the bus hit the old person and he fell down. From the above facts and admission of the charged employee that the old person fell down due to bus hit him and died subsequently. This is also confirmed from the statement of Sh. Ved Pal Singh Conductor. While his contention that the old person without seeing anything come on the old person without seeing anything come on the road and although the best effort of the driver to save him the left corner of the bus hit him is not considerable because the charged employee in his final statement and statement given at the time of accident it is cleared that the bus was passing through the village at the time of accident and there was bull-cart and children standing thereby. In such circumstances the driver should be drive the bus slowly and under control speed. If the speed of the bus was slowed then although the old person suddenly come on the road the driver was easily stop the bus or saved him from side. But the old person hit by the front portion of the bus which illustrated that the bus was in high speed due to which driver failed to control the bus resultantly the front left portion of bus hit the old person due to which he died on the spot.
2. To peruse the case file it is proved that the bus was technically fit at the time of accident. In addition to this the accident Committee held that the driver was completely responsible for the accident and police also registered the case against the driver under section 304-A and 279 of IPC and lodged a case under FIR No.31/99 CC No.54/99. After seeing the documents related to accident find that the bus has suffered loss of Rs.7500/-.
However, the corporation has given full opportunity to the charged employee to defend. On the basis of finding of the enquiry and documents on record charges made against the charge employee is proved.
4. Based upon the aforesaid conclusion, the respondent-DTC have imposed the punishment upon the applicant, as referred to above. The case projected by the applicant in this OA is that since he has been acquitted by the trial court in a criminal case, the aforesaid penalty order is required to be set aside.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for applicant at admission stage and perused the material placed on record. We are of the view that the applicant has not made out any case for grant of relief. As can be seen from the judgment of the trial court, which has been placed on record, it is evident that the trial court has discarded the prosecution case and statement of complainant solely on the ground that the complainant Satender Kumar Sharma deposed that the driver of the bus was driving the bus rashly and negligently and hit his father from behind. The complainant has also deposed that he has seen the number of bus from behind and found DL-1P-A-1946, whereas in the cross examination the said witness has stated that at the time of accident, he was nervous and he has neither seen the bus number, nor had seen the driver of the bus and that the number of the bus has been written in the complaint on the basis of the information received from some people. It was on this basis that the trial court has recorded findings that the charge made against the accused is not beyond doubt and the applicant was acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt. Thus, the trial court has not given any finding that the accused was not guilty of rash and negligently driving the bus, which resulted into the death of the father of the complainant, whereas as can be seen from the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, which have been reproduced in the earlier part of this order, the charge leveled against the applicant has been proved. It may be relevant to mention here that the factum of the accident and the fact that the applicant was driving the bus, which resulted in the death of one person, has not been disputed by the applicant. In the inquiry report, the inquiry officer has recorded the categorical finding that the applicant was responsible for the accident and he should have driven the bus slowly and under the controlled speed, especially when the bus was passing through the village at the time of accident and there was bull-cart and children standing thereby as per own admission of the applicant.
6. As already stated above, in this case the applicant has not been acquitted on merits but he has been given benefit of doubt. Merely because the applicant has been given the benefit of doubt by the trial court, according to us, will not nullify the decision taken in departmental proceedings. They operate in different areas and there are conceptual difference between departmental inquiry and criminal proceedings. The standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is not the same as required to prove a criminal charge. The purpose of departmental inquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty, the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental inquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. Further the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position.
7. Thus, in view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the applicant has not made out any case for grant of relief. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed at admission stage.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( M. L. Chauhan ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/