Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Krishan vs Delhi Transport Corporation, Govt. Of ... on 20 December, 2016
1 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
New Delhi this the 20th day of December, 2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. P.K. BASU, MEMBER (A)
Sr. No. (1) O.A. No.100/3946/2015
Shri Kishan
S/o Shri Mahender Singh
Age about 34 years
Working as Ex-Driver,
Under Melanium Depot-4,
Near Sarai Kalan Khan,
New Delhi. -Applicant
(Argued by: Shri Manjeet Singh Reen, Advocate)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation and Others
Through
1. The Chairman-cum-MD,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
DTC Hqrs., I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002
2. The Depot Manager,
Delhi Transport Corporation.
Melanium Depot-4,
Near Sarai Kalan Khan,
New Delhi-110002.
3. The Regional Manager (East)
Delhi Transport Corporation
South, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi. -Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Manish Garg)
Sr. No.(2) 100/1326/2016
Shri Shiv Raj Meena ,
Aged 40 years,
Ex-Driver, B.No.24699 Add: BlockGA-75, Pul Prahaladpur,
Badarpur Border, Tehsil Kalkaji,
Distt. Mehrauli, New Delhi-110044. ....Applicant
(Argued by: Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, Advocate)
2 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation
Through Chairman,
Government of NCT of Delhi
Rajghat Depot-1, New Delhi. Respondents
(Argued by: Mr. A.K. Roy with Mr. Hitesh Bagh for Mr. Manish
Garg, Advocate)
Sr. No.(3) OA No.100/2990/2016
Bijender Singh s/o Sh. Ishwar Singh,
Address: VPO Rohat,
District Sonipat-131001
Haryana. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri Anil Sehrawat with Ms. Parul Dureja, Advocates)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
IP Estate, New Delhi.
(Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director) ...Respondents
(Argued by:Mr. Umesh Joshi and Mr. Ajesh Luthra, Advocates)
Sr. No.(4) OA No.100/3902/2016
Vinod (Post Driver, Group 'C' Age 34 years)
s/o Sh. Rajbir Singh,
VPO Halalpur,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri Anil Sehrawat with Ms. Parul Dureja, Advocates)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
IP Estate, New Delhi
(Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director) ...Respondents
(Argued by: Shri Ajesh Luthra, Advocate)
Sr. No.(5) OA No.100/134/2016
Sh. Anil Kumar, Ex.Driver,
B.No.21702, Age 31 years
G.T.K. Depot, DTC, G.N.C.T. of Delhi,
S/o Sh. Dharamvir,
r/o VPO Guhna, Sonipat, Haryana. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Mr. N. Gautam, Advocate)
3 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases
Versus
1. The Managing Director,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
DTC Headquarter, IP Estate,
New Delhi - 110 002.
2. The Regional Manager-cum-Appellate Authority (North),
Through MD-DTC,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
IP Estate, New Delhi- 110 002.
3. The Depot Manager,
G.T.K. Depot,
D.T.C., Delhi.
4. Commissioner (Transport),
Transport Department,
GNCT of Delhi,
5/9, Under Hill Road,
Delhi-54. ...Respondents
(Argued by: Shri Atul Kumar Singh for Shri Karunesh Tandon,
Advocate)
Sr. No.(6) OA No.100/593/2016
Shri Sunil Kumar (Ex. Driver DTC)
Aged 37 Years, S/o. Sh. Mahender Singh
Driver Batch No. 22459, T. No. 64420,
Office At : Shadipur Depot, DTC, Delhi
R/o. Vill Dehra, Tehsil-Samalkha,
Distt-Panipat, Haryana-131 402. .....Applicant
(Argued by: Mr. F. K. Jha, Advocate)
Versus
1. Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
DTC Headquarter, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi - 110 002.
2. Regional Manager-cum-Appellate Authority
Authority (West), through CMD-DTC
DTC Headquarter, I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
3. The Depot Manager,
Delhi Transport Corporation, GTK Road Depot,
DTC, Delhi-110 033 ....Respondents
(Argued by: Mr. A. K. Roy and Mr. Hitesh Bagh for Mr.
Manish Garg, Advocate)
4 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases
Sr. No. (7) OA No.100/3923/2016
Sh. Satbir Singh Yadav
(Ex-Driver DTC) (Age 34 years) (Group-C)
S/o Sh. Mohan Lal,
Driver B.No.25422, T.No.67424,
R/o Vill. Paprawat, PO Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110 043. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri F.K. Jha, Advocate)
Versus
1. Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
DTC Headquarter, IP Estate,
New Delhi - 110 002.
2. Regional Manager-cum-Appellate Authority,
Through CMD-DTC,
DTC Headquarter, IP Estate,
New Delhi.
3. The Depot Manager,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Hari Nagar Depot-II,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(Argued by: Shri A.K. Roy with Shri Hitesh Bagh for
Shri Manish Garg and Mr. Ajesh Luthra, Advocates)
Sr. No. (8) OA No.10/3937/2016
Sh. Rishi Kumar (Ex-Driver DTC) (42 years) Group-C)
S/o Sh. Prem Singh,
Driver B.No.22182, T.No.64143,
R/o V.P.O. Mohra,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri F.K. Jha, Advocate)
Versus
1. Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
DTC Headquarter, IP Estate,
New Delhi - 110 002.
2. Regional Manager-cum-Appellate Authority,
Through CMD-DTC,
DTC Headquarter, IP Estate,
New Delhi.
5 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases
3. The Depot Manager,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Hari Nagar Depot-II,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(Argued by: Shri Ajesh Luthra, Advocate)
Sr. No.(9) OA No.100/3938/2016
Sh. Rajneesh Kumar (Ex-Driver DTC) (43 years) (Group-C)
S/o Sh. Pritam Singh,
Driver B.No.24742, T.No.66732,
R/o 971/30, Gali No.3,
Vikas Nagar, Kakroi Road,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri K.K. Jha, Advocate)
Versus
1. Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
DTC Headquarter, IP Estate,
New Delhi - 110 002.
2. Regional Manager-cum-Appellate Authority,
Through CMD-DTC,
DTC Headquarter, IP Estate,
New Delhi.
3. The Depot Manager,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Hari Nagar Depot-II,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(Argued by: Shri Ajesh Luthra, Advocate)
Sr. No. (10) OA No.100/3939/2016
Shri Surender Kumar (Ex. Driver DTC)
(34 Years), Group -C, Driver B. No. 24756, T. No. 66746,
R/o. 681/24, Arya Nagar, Kath Mandi
Sonepat, Haryana. .....Applicant
(Argued by : Mr. F. K. Jha, Advocate)
Versus
1. Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
DTC Headquarter, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi - 110 002.
6 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases
2. Regional Manager-cum-Appellate Authority
Through CMD-DTC, DTC Headquarter, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
3. The Depot Manager,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Hari Nagar Depot-II, New Delhi. ....Respondents
(Argued by: Ms. Swati Jain with Ms. Mona Sinha for Ms.
Ruchira Gupta, Advocates)
Sr. No.(11) OA No.100/3775/2016
Sh. Pradeep, Aged 39 years, Group C,
S/o Sh. Phool Singh,
Driver Badge No.21554, T.No.63514,
R/o Vill. Kulasi, Teh. Bahadurgarh,
Distt. Jhajjar (Haryana). ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri F.K. Jha, Advocate)
Versus
1. Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
DTC Headquarter, IP Estate,
New Delhi - 110 002.
2. Regional Manager-cum-Appellate Authority,
Through CMD-DTC,
DTC Headquarter, IP Estate,
New Delhi.
3. The Depot Manager,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Shadipur Depot, Delhi. ...Respondents
(Argued by: Shri Ajesh Luthra, Advocate)
Sr. No.(12) OA No.100/3692/2016
Rakesh Kumar, Driver
B.No.26964, P.T.N. 68970
S/o Shir Ram Karan
R/o House No. 90, VPO Jharoda Kalan,
New Delhi-72. ....Applicant
(Argued by: Shri Ajay Dabas, Advocate)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Govt. of NCTD,
I.P. Estate,
7 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases
New Delhi-110002. ...Respondents
(Argued by: Shri Ajesh Luthra, Advocate)
Sr. No.(13) OA No.100/2600/2016
Amit Kumar, Driver B.No.23507, DKD
s/o Sh. Raj Singh,
R/o Village & PO Silani Pana Casho,
Tehsil & District Jhajjar, Haryana. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri Anil Mittal with Ms. Komal Aggarwal, Advocates)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
IP Estate, New Delhi
(Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director) ...Respondents
(Argued by: Ms. Arati Mahajan with Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates)
Sr. No. (14) OA No.100/2610/2016
Manmohan, Aged 35 years
s/o Sh. Bhajender Pal,
R/o 301/A, Chawla Bus Stand,
Gaushala Road, Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110 043
Presently posted at
Dwarka Depot-II,
Driver Badge No.24860. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri G.S. Charya, Advocate)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
IP Estate,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(Argued by: Ms. Arati Mahajan with Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates)
Sr. No. (15) OA No.100/2611/2016
Rajesh Kumar, Aged 34 years
s/o Sh. Krishan Chand Yadav,
R/o RZ-62, R-Block, New Dharampura,
Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110 043
8 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases
Presently posted at Dwarka Depot-II,
Driver Badge No.21628. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri G.S. Charya, Advocate)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
IP Estate,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(Argued by: Ms. Arati Mahajan with Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates)
Sr.No.(16) OA No.100/2612/2016
Anil Kumar, Age 37 years
s/o Sh. Om Prakash,
R/o RZP-9/1, New Roshanpura,
Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110 043
Presently posted at Dwarka Depot-II,
Driver Badge No.24009. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri G.S. Charya, Advocate)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
IP Estate,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(Argued by: Ms. Arati Mahajan with Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates)
Sr. No.(17) OA No.100/2613/2016
Anil Kumar, Aged 34 years
s/o Sh. Dharambir,
R/o Village & PO Saidpur,
Teh. Khar Khoda,
District Sonepat, Haryana
Presently posted at Dwarka Depot-II,
Driver Badge No.26387. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri G.S. Charya, Advocate)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
9 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases
IP Estate,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(Argued by: Ms. Arati Mahajan with Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates)
Sr. No. (18) OA No.100/2614/2016
Ashok Kumar, Aged 34 years
s/o Sh. Subhe Singh,
R/o Village & PO Phana Issapur,
New Delhi - 110 073
Presently posted at Dwarka Depot-II,
Driver Badge No.24342. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri G.S. Charya, Advocate)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
IP Estate,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(Argued by: Ms. Arati Mahajan with Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates)
Sr. No. (19) OA No.100/2617/2016
Shri Jai Parkash, Aged 32 years
Driver, DTC
S/o Sh. Charat Singh,
R/o VPO Khatiawas,
Distt. Jhajjar (Haryana). ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri Sachin Chauhan, Advocate)
Versus
1. Delhi Transport Corporation through
Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
DTC, IP Estate,
New Delhi - 110 002.
2. The Depot Manager,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Rajghat Depot-1,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(Argued by: Ms. Arati Mahajan with Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates)
Sr. No. (20) OA No.100/2759/2016
10 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases
Akhilesh s/o Sh. Mangi Ram,
R/o Village New Roshanpura,
B.D.O. Office, Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110 043
Presently posted at Dwarka Depot-II,
Driver Badge No.23528. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri G. S. Charya, Advocate)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
IP Estate,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(Argued by: Ms. Arati Mahajan with Mr. Manoj Kumar and Shri
Ajesh Luthra, Advocates)
Sr. No. (21) OA No.100/2870/2016
Dharam Dev, Driver B.No.26092, DKD
s/o Sh. Ishwar Singh,
R/o Village & PO Bakarwala,
New Delhi. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri Anil Mittal with Ms. Komal Aggarwal, Advocates)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation,
IP Estate, New Delhi
(Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director) ...Respondents
(Argued by: Ms. Arati Mahajan with Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates)
Sr. No.(22) OA No.100/2898/2016
Dinesh Yadav, Aged 36 years
s/o Sh. Gajraj Singh,
R/o Village & PO Dhani Mechana,
Tehsil Farook Nagar,
District Gurgaon, Haryana.
Presently posted at
Bagdola Dwarka Sector-8 Depot,
Driver Badge No.23531. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri G.S. Charya, Advocate)
Versus
11 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
IP Estate,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(Argued by: Ms. Arati Mahajan with Mr. Manoj Kumar and Shri
Ajesh Luthra, Advocates)
Sr. No. (23) OA No.100/2899/2016
Rakesh Kumar, Aged 40 years
s/o Sh. Sunder Lal,
R/o Village & PO Bharthal,
New Delhi - 110 077
Presently posted at
Bagdola Dwarka Sector-8 Depot,
Driver Badge No.22344. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri G.S. Charya, Advocate)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
IP Estate,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(Argued by: Ms. Arati Mahajan with Mr. Manoj Kumar and Shri
Ajesh Luthra, Advocates)
Sr. No. (24) OA No.100/2900/2016
Ravinder Kumar, Aged 39 years
s/o Sh. Ram Niwas,
R/o Village & PO Sadat Nagar,
Tech. Kasholi,
Distt. Riwari - 123302, Haryana
Presently posted at
Bagdola Dwarka Sector-8 Depot,
Driver Badge No.27011. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri G.S. Charya, Advocate)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
IP Estate,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
12 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases
(Argued by: Ms. Arati Mahajan with Mr. Manoj Kumar and Shri
Ajesh Luthra, Advocates)
Sr. No.(25) OA No.100/2901/2016
Sandeep Rana, Aged 33 years
s/o Sh. Attar Singh,
R/o Main Palam Vihar Road,
Bijwasan, New Delhi - 110 061
Presently posted at
Bagdola Dwarka Sector-8 Depot,
Driver Badge No.26440. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri G.S. Charya, Advocate)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
IP Estate,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(Argued by: Ms. Arati Mahajan with Mr. Manoj Kumar and Shri
Ajesh Luthra, Advocates)
Sr. No.(26) OA No.100/2902/2016
Ashok Kumar, Aged 34 years
S/o Sh. Shish Ram,
R/o RZP-54, Raj Nagar-II,
Gali No.1, Palam Colony,
New Delhi - 110 045
Presently posted at
Bagdola Dwarka Sector-8 Depot,
Driver Badge No.26817. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri G.S. Charya, Advocate)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
IP Estate,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(Argued by: Ms. Arati Mahajan with Mr. Manoj Kumar and Shri
Ajesh Luthra, Advocates)
Sr. No.(27) OA No.100/2923/2016
13 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases
Naveen Yadav, Aged 34 years
s/o Sh. Hukum Chand Yadav,
R/o RZ-1060, Guru Nanak Marg,
Raj Nagar-II, Palam Colony,
New Delhi - 110 045
Presently posted at
Bagdola Dwarka Sector-8 Depot,
Driver Badge No.21953. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri G.S. Charya, Advocate)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
IP Estate,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(Argued by: Ms. Arati Mahajan with Mr. Manoj Kumar and Shri
Ajesh Luthra, Advocates)
Sr. No. (28) OA No.100/2948/2016
Inderjeet Solanki, Aged 38 years
s/o Sh. Sri Prakash Solanki,
R/o Village Shahbad Mohamadpur,
New Delhi - 110 061
Presently posted at
Bagdola Dwarka Sector-8 Depot,
Driver Badge No.22346. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri G.S. Charya, Advocate)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
IP Estate,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(Argued by: Ms. Arati Mahajan with Mr. Manoj Kumar and Shri
Ajesh Luthra, Advocates)
Sr. No.(29) OA No.100/3033/2016
Devinder Kumar, Aged 34 yers
s/o Sh. Mahinder Singh,
R/o RZ-61/4A, Lokesh Park,
Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110 043
Presently posted at
Dwarka Depot Sector-II,
Driver Badge No.25739. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri G.S. Charya, Advocate)
14 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
IP Estate,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(Argued by: Ms. Arati Mahajan with Mr. Manoj Kumar and Shri
Ajesh Luthra, Advocates)
Sr. No.(30) OA No.100/3711/2016
Vikram Singh, Aged 38 years
S/o Sh. Gaje Singh,
R/o RZ-31, Ugrasen Park,
Dichaon Road, Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110 043
Presently posted at
Bagdola Dwarka Sector-8 Depot,
Driver Badge No.24119. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri G.S. Charya, Advocate)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
IP Estate,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(Argued by: Ms. Arati Mahajan with Mr. Manoj Kumar and Shri
Ajesh Luthra, Advocates)
Sr. No.(31) OA No.100/3712/2016
Permod Kumar, Aged 38 years
s/o Sh. Zile Singh,
R/o D-209A, Prem Nagar,
Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110 043
Presently posted at
Bagdola Dwarka Sector-8 Depot,
Driver Badge No.21676. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Shri G.S. Charya, Advocate)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
15 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases
IP Estate,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(Argued by: Ms. Arati Mahajan with Mr. Manoj Kumar and Shri
Ajesh Luthra, Advocates)
ORDER (ORAL)
Justice M. S. Sullar, Member (J) As common questions of law and facts are involved, so we propose to decide all the above mentioned Original Applications (OAs), by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition of the facts. Moreover, the learned counsel for the parties are also at ad idem, that the controversy raised in all the pointed cases, can effectively be decided by this order.
2. The matrix of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the core controversy involved in the instant OAs, as claimed by the applicants, and exposited from the record, is that, consequent upon clearing the selection process conducted by Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (for brevity "DSSSB"), the applicants (in all the OAs), were appointed to the post of Drivers, initially on probation for a period of 2 years, vide their respective offers of appointments, by Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC). Their driving licences were stated to have been verified at the time of recruitment by DSSSB, and then by DTC at the time of initial appointment.
3. Having cleared their skill driving test and on successful completion of their probation period, they were duly 16 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases confirmed on the said post by the DTC. Thereafter, they continuously discharged their duties, as such, efficiently for a long time.
4. Subsequently, in pursuance of some alleged communication/report of fake/bogus licences, the DTC issued the impugned Show Cause Notices (SCNs) to show cause as to why their appointments, being void ab initio should not be terminated under para 9(b) of the Executive Instructions on procedure regarding disciplinary action & appeals issued vide No.ADM1-3(18)/53 dated 5th August 1955.
4A. In pursuance thereof, the applicants filed their respective replies to the impugned SCNs, which were found to be unsatisfactory. As a consequence thereof, the services of the applicants in cases at Sl.No.(1) to (10) were terminated, vide impugned orders dated 14.05.2015, 28.03.2013, 30.03.2015, 17.12.2012, 31.03.2015, 30.03.2015, and 31.10.2016 respectively, by the Depot Manager. The appeals filed by the applicants in cases at Sl.No.(1) to (4) were also dismissed by the Appellate Authorities (AAs) and decisions were conveyed to the applicants, vide impugned Memos dated 21.09.2015, 09.12.2015, 20.08.2015 and 24.06.2015 respectively.
5. Likewise, similar impugned SCNs dated 20.02.2015, 08.04.2015, 18.07.2016, 08.07.2016, 22.04.2016, 27.05.2016 and 22.07.2016 respectively were also issued to the applicants in cases at Sr. Nos. (5) and (11) to (31) in a routine manner. Since they 17 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases have already approached this Tribunal, challenging the impugned SCNs in their respective OAs, so the termination orders were not passed against them by the DTC.
6. The applicants in cases at Sl.Nos.(1) to (10), claimed that, the DTC, without considering the issues raised by them in their respective replies, passed the impugned termination orders, in a very casual manner. Even the appeals filed by the applicants at Sl.No.(i) to (iv) were rejected and their decisions were conveyed to the applicants, vide impugned pointed Memos.
7. Aggrieved thereby, the applicants have preferred the instant OAs, challenging the impugned SCNs and orders, invoking the provisions of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
8. The case set up by the applicants, in brief, insofar as relevant, is that, they were duly appointed to the post of Drivers after clearing the recruitment process by DSSSB. They have successfully completed their period of probation and were confirmed by DTC. Thereafter, they have worked for a long period on the post of Drivers, but Depot Manager has terminated their services, without conducting any regular Departmental Enquiry (DE) under Section 15(2) of DRTA (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Regulation"), vide impugned orders, which are in violation of their fundamental rights, guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, 21 & 18 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The competent authority has not considered all the issues raised by them, in their respective replies and routine termination orders were passed in a very causal manner. Their services were terminated by a very brief, non-speaking and unreasoned order by the Depot Manager.
9. According to the applicants, the DTC has discriminated them by terminating their services, without holding any enquiry, whereas it (DTC) has initiated regular DEs under Rule 15(2) of the Regulation, against similarly situated Drivers. It was also alleged that they submitted the genuine driving licences, which were verified by DSSSB at the time of selection and then by DTC at the time of their initial appointment.
10. The case of the applicants further proceeds, that even the impugned SCNs and termination orders are smeared with stigma, punitive in nature and their services cannot be terminated by adopting short cut method & without holding a regular DE, that too, by issuing very brief, vague and non-speaking orders by the authorities. The impugned orders were termed to be whimsical, arbitrary, illegal and against the statutory rules, regulations and principles of natural justice.
11. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the applicants claimed that they were confirmed employees and the DTC has no 19 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases power/jurisdiction to summarily terminate their services in a casual way, without holding regular DEs. It will not be out of place to mention here, that the applicants in other cases have also assailed the impugned action of the respondents. Instead of reproducing the entire pleadings of other applicants, and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say, that they have also urged and pleaded the similar grounds, to challenge the impugned SCNs and orders in their respective connected OAs. On the strength of the aforesaid grounds, the applicants seek quashing of the impugned SCNs and orders in the manner indicated hereinabove.
12. The contesting respondents have refuted the claim of the applicants and filed the replies, wherein it was acknowledged, that applicants were duly appointed on the post of Drivers, through the recruitment process conducted by DSSSB. They completed their probation period and were confirmed. However, it was pleaded, that subsequently since the driving licences of the applicants were found to be bogus, so the impugned SCNs for terminating their services were rightly issued to them by the competent authority. According to the DTC, the mere fact that the applicants were confirmed in service after completion of probation period, will not advance their cases, as their initial appointments itself were null and void ab initio. Similarly, it has been pleaded that after considering the replies, the 20 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases services of the applicants [in cases Sl.Nos.(1) to (10)] were rightly terminated, vide impugned termination orders by the competent authority & the appeals of the applicants in cases at Sl.Nos.(1) to (4) were correctly rejected by the AAs and result thereof, was conveyed to them.
13. Sequelly, it may be added here, that the learned counsel for the respondents, have fairly adopted the earlier written statements filed in all the connected cases, as well in other cases, in which they have not filed the replies. Otherwise also, since the DTC has already taken all the possible grounds of defence, so it would not be able to add any new points to reiterate the validity of the impugned SCNs and orders, in any manner. However, virtually acknowledging the factual matrix and reiterating the validity of the impugned SCNs and orders, the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations & grounds contained in it and prayed for dismissal of the OAs.
14. At the very outset, the arguments of learned counsel for respondents, that the applicants have not impleaded the Driving Licensing Authority as a party and since the applicants have not availed their appropriate remedy under the Motor Vehicles Act, so they are not entitled for any relief in the present OAs, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
15. It is not a matter of dispute, that the applicants are not claiming any relief from the Driving Licensing Authority, so same was neither a necessary nor proper party, for deciding 21 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases the real controversy between the parties, in the present cases. Similarly, non-availing of alleged appropriate remedy by the applicants under Motor Vehicle Act, is altogether a different issue and would not disentitle them in any manner, to challenge the impugned SCNs and orders on the pointed legal grounds. Thus the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents stricto sensu deserve to be and are hereby repelled, under the present set of circumstances.
16. Therefore, now in the wake of pleadings of the parties and during the course of arguments, the following four questions arise for our determination in these cases:-
(i) Whether the services of the confirmed Drivers (applicants), can be terminated by issuing the impugned SCNs/termination order in a very casual manner and without holding any regular Departmental Enquiry (DE);
(ii) Whether the impugned SCNs/termination order are smeared with stigma and punitive in nature;
(iii) Whether DTC can discriminate the applicants, insofar as it has already issued proper charge sheets and started regular DEs against similarly situated persons/Drivers; and
(iv) Whether the services of the applicants can legally be terminated by issuing very brief, vague SCNs/termination order, without application of mind and without holding an enquiry by the DTC.
17. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their valuable help.
22 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases
18. Learned counsel for the parties are fairly at ad idem, that all the four indicated questions were directly and substantially in issue and have already been adjudicated upon, in a bunch of OAs decided on 26.10.2016 in main OA bearing No.100/2351/2015 titled as Hari Om Singh Vs. DTC and Others by this Tribunal. All the indicated issues were in favour of similarly situated Drivers (therein) and against the DTC. Thus, they fairly submitted that controversy involved in the present OAs is squarely covered by indicated decision and the instant OAs accordingly be also disposed of in the same terms.
19. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that consequent upon clearing the selection process conducted by DSSSB, the applicants were duly appointed on the post of Drivers in DTC. Their driving licences were verified at the time of initial recruitment by DSSSB, and then by DTC at the time of appointment. Having cleared their skill driving test and successfully completing the probation period, they were duly confirmed on the said posts by the DTC. Some of the similarly situated Drivers had earlier filed OAs challenging the similar SCNs and termination orders on the same very/similar grounds. The DTC has defended its action (therein) on the similar grounds pleaded in the present OAs.
20. Meaning thereby, the controversy involved in the instant OAs is directly and substantially in issue & identical to the 23 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases one raised and decided in case Hari Om Singh's case (supra) by this Tribunal, wherein having placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in cases Kamal Narayan Mishra Vs. State of M.P. (2010) 2 SCC 169, Avtar Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Others in SLP (C) No.20525/2011 decided on 21.07.2016, Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar and Others JT 2015 (9) 363, Man Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others AIR 2008 SC 2481, Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and Others 2013 (2) AISLJ 120, Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and Others (2009) 4 SCC 240, Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Madhuusudan Rao JT 2008 (2) SC 253 and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a bunch of Writ Petitions decided on 14.07.2014 along with main case Suresh Chand and Another Vs. DTC W.P. (C) No.4212/2014, it was ruled that such impugned SCNs and termination orders are illegal, void and inoperative.
21. Therefore, the present OAs also deserve to be allowed in the same terms, in order to avoid the possibility of conflicting decision in the same matter, which is not legally permissible. The ratio of law laid down in the abovementioned judgments, is mutatis mutandis applicable to the present controversy and is a complete answer to the problem in hand. Not only that, the indicated judgment is otherwise also relevant on the principle of stare decisis and parity.
24 OA No.No.100/3946/2015 and connected cases
22. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, during the course of regular DEs, the indicated OAs are partly accepted in view of the ratio of law laid down in Hari Om Singh's case (supra) (which would naturally be treated as a part of this judgment as well).
23. Therefore, the impugned termination & appellate orders in cases at Sl.No.(1) to (4), impugned termination orders in cases at Sl.No (5) to (10) and impugned SCNs in all connected cases at Sl.No.(11) to (31) are hereby set aside. As a consequence thereof, applicants are ordered to be reinstated in service forthwith with 50% of back wages. At the same time, all the terms and conditions will also apply in the instant OAs, in the same manner and terms, as has been held in the operative para (para 50) in Hari Om Singh's case (supra) of this Tribunal. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
Let a copy of this order be placed in all the connected files.
(P.K. BASU) (JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
20.12.2016
Rakesh