Delhi High Court
Hari Chand And Ors. vs D.T.C. And Anr. on 10 February, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995IAD(DELHI)985, 58(1995)DLT751, 1995LABLC1261, (1996)ILLJ197DEL
Author: S.D. Pandit
Bench: S.D. Pandit
JUDGMENT S.D. Pandit, J.
1. All these seventeen petitions are raising common questions. All the petitioners in these seventeen petitions are the employees of Delhi Transport Corporation. Out of these petitioners Shri Ram Dev, petitioner of Petition No. 3723/94 and Ram Kumar, petitioner of Petition No. 3461/94 are working as drivers. Petitioner Mahavir Prasad of Petition No. 124/95, is working as Assistant Fitter whereas remaining petitioners are working as conductors. As the contention raised on behalf of all these petitioners as well as the respondents in all these petitions are similar, all these petitions are being considered and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. It is an admitted fact that these petitioners were charge-sheeted by the Officers of Delhi Transport Corporation. They were charge-sheeted by the Depot Manager to which they were attached and disciplinary inquiry was held against each of them and on finding of the Inquiry Officer that they had committed the misconduct, each of them is served with a show-cause notice issued by the Depot Manager to show-cause as to why the punishment of dismissal should not be awarded to him.
3. Petitioners have come before the Court with a claim that the notices issued by the Depot Manager as well as charge framed against each of them by the Depot Manager are the acts of incompetent person. Therefore those acts are illegal and invalid. They, therefore, seek the quashing of the said show-cause notice as well as the disciplinary inquiry.
4. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the Depot Manager is a Competent Authority and the charge framed by him and the show-cause notice issued by him are valid and legal, the present petitions are premature. They are not tenable in law and therefore they be dismissed.
5. Though all the petitioners in these petitions have contended that they were not appointed by the Depot Manager and that they were appointed by General Manager, none of them had produced the appointment letter or any other document Along with the petition to support that claim of them. No doubt in all petitions except Petition No. 124/95 the earlier Bench was pleased to issue notice to the respondent and respondent has not filed any reply controverting the claim made in these petitions by the petitioners. Therefore, at the most in those petitions it could be held in favor of the petitioners that their claim that they were appointed by the General Manager, has not been specifically denied by filing a reply by the respondent, should be accepted. Therefore, we proceed to consider the claim of the petitioners regarding the validity of the disciplinary action taken against them by assuming that atleast those petitioners were appointed by the General Manager.
6. It is contended by the petitioners that Depot Manager is not a Competent Authority to take disciplinary action against the petitioners and the charge framed by him against the petitioner and subsequent final show-cause notice issued by him are illegal and invalid. Shri O.P. Sharma who is representing petitioners in Petition Nos. 3895/94, 4080/94 and 4668/94 has drawn our attention to the provisions of Delhi Road Transport Act as well as the regulations passed by the Delhi Road Transport Authority. It is an admitted fact that in the year 1957 by virtue of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act the public transport in Delhi came under the Municipal Corporation established under the said Act. But in the year 1971 there was again a statutory amendment and the Delhi Road Transport Laws (Amendment) Act, 1971 came into force with effect from 3rd November, 1971. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that in view of Section 4 of the Amendment Act of 1971 all rules, regulations, appointments, notifications, bye-laws, schemes and standing orders relating to the transport services whether made under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 or Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1971 to be in force and deemed to be regulations made by the new Corporation under Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and shall in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act, continue to be in force and be deemed to be regulations made by the new Corporation under Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Therefore, it is contended before us that every employee appointed for the purpose of Delhi Transport Undertaking stood transferred as an employee of the new Corporation and was to hold office for the same tenure on the same remuneration and on the same terms and conditions of service as he would have held if new Corporation had not been established and was to continue to hold the said office. As regards these submissions made on behalf of the petitioner there is no dispute at all by the respondent and they admit the said position.
7. Therefore, it is contended by the petitioners that the General Manager of the Delhi Road Transport Authority alone would be entitled to take disciplinary action against them in view of the Regulations 15(2) of D.R.T Authority Act. It is an admitted fact that under the said Regulation No. 50, the General Manager is declared a Competent Authority for taking disciplinary action against the Class III & Class IV employees also but the provisions of Section 12 of the Delhi Transport Corporation Act, 1950 empowers and authorises the DTC Board to pass a resolution authorising any other Officer of the Corporation to exercise such powers and to perform such duties as it may deem necessary for the efficient day to day administration of its business. In view of the said provisions the DTC Board has exercised its powers and has passed resolution bearing No. 319 dated 2nd March, 1974 and No. 71 dated 20th April, 1989 whereby the Depot Managers, Assistant Engineers, Traffic Superintendents, Assistant Traffic Superintendents are authorised and empowered to take disciplinary action including action for termination and suspension against the specified class of employees. Therefore, the Depot Manager is quite Competent Authority to take the disciplinary action against the present petitioners. The contentions which the petitioners have raised before us were raised earlier before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Raghunandan Sharma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., 1994(2) Apex Decisions (Delhi) 349 and after considering the Resolutions No. 319 dated 2nd March, 1974 and No. 71 dated 20th April, 1989 as well as the provisions of Section 12(1)(c) of the Delhi Road Corporation Act, 1950 and Section 4 of Delhi Road Transport Laws Amendment Act, 1971 and Section 53 of Delhi Road Transport Act as well as the DRT Conditions and Appointments of Service Regulations, 1952, they have laid down the following principles :
"Having considered all aspects we are of the view that the power conferred on Depot Managers by virtue of the Resolutions passed by the D.T.C. Board deriving source from the provisions of Section 12(1)(c) of the Road Transport Corporation Act is valid exercise of statutory powers and the initiation of disciplinary action and issuance of the show-cause notices, as the case may be, by the Depot Managers in these various cases, is valid. The initiation or taking of disciplinary action by the Depot Managers cannot be faulted on the ground of lack of power or authority in the officer concerned."
8. We do not find any reason to differ from the view taken by the earlier Division Bench of this Court. We thus hold that there is no substance in the contention of the learned Advocates for the petitioners that the disciplinary action taken by the Depot Manager is illegal and invalid.
9. On behalf of petitioners Shri Sharma has cited before us the judgment in LPA No. 6 of 1978 Delhi Transport Corporation v. Surinder Kumar decided on 30th September, 1977. But if the facts of the said case are considered then it would be quite clear that it has no bearing on the facts before us. In that case it was the claim of the original petitioners who were the conductors and drivers that the dismissal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners by the persons who were not entitled to take the disciplinary action regarding the dismissal proceedings which took place prior to 2nd March, 1974 as the delegation of powers were done away by Resolution No. 271 dated 25th April, 1973 and, therefore, the Officers who were exercising the delegated powers and Depot Managers of Delhi Transport undertaking of Delhi Municipal Corporation, were divested of all the delegated powers and consequently the disciplinary action taken by them were invalid and illegal. That contention of the petitioner was accepted by the Single Judge of this Court and, therefore, the Delhi Transport Corporation filed Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court had set aside the said decision of the Single Judge. In the same case the Single Judge had held that the disciplinary action taken by the Officers who were delegated with the powers after 2nd March, 1974 were quite valid and legal and it was not necessary for the General Manager or the Corporation alone to take disciplinary action. That finding of the Single Bench was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, in the circumstances, the said case does not favor the petitioners at all. On the contrary it took the same view which had been reiterated in Raghunandan Sharma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. 1994(2) Apex Decisions (Delhi) 349.
10. Shri Vohra also cited before us the case of Chief of Army Staff and Ors. v. Major Dharam Pal Kukrety, 1985(1) Services Law Reporter 658. The said case is not also applicable to facts of the cases before us. In that case the show-cause notice issued by the Chief of Army Staff under Section 127 under Rule 14 of Army Rules, 1954 was challenged and it has been held that the show cause notice can be challenged if the same is issued by an authority not competent to issue the same and is without jurisdiction. On the facts it was found in that case that notice was quite valid and legal. We have already discussed above that the Depot Manager is a Competent Authority to take disciplinary action and the show-cause notice issued by him is quite valid and legal.
11. Shri Vohra has also cited before us the cases of Western India Match Company Ltd. v. Workmen, 1973(2) Labour Law Journal 403 and Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India and Ors., 1981(1) Labour Law Journal 209. Both these cases are not applicable to the facts before us and they have no bearing on the questions raised before us.
12. Another contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the proposed punishment indicated by the Depot Manager in his notice is contrary to the standing orders and circulars of the respondent No. 1. According to them a circular is issued on 3rd January, 1966 and by the said circular for the first offender as well as for the petty offence the steps for correcting the individual worker should be taken. On behalf of the petitioner reliance is placed on following para No. 3 of the said Circular:
"In case of commission of irregularities involving cheating for the first time the Enquiry Officer should take corrective action by sending for the employee personally cautioning him to avoid the recurrence of such a nature in future."
It must be remembered here that the Depot Manager has yet to take final decisions regarding the awarding of punishment. Apart from it, it must be mentioned here that the conductors who were found guilty in the department inquiry were found of having received money from the passengers and not having issued tickets to them. Some of them even found in possession of punched tickets which they wanted to re-issue. Therefore, it could not be said that the charges against them are of a very trivial nature. In case of petitioner in C.W.P. 124/95 it is found that he had stolen property of D.R.T. Act. In case of drivers it was found that they were negligent towards their duties and they were remaining absent and therefore, disciplinary action was taken against them. The charge levelled against each of them could not be said of trial nature. But apart from this the circular dated 3rd January, 1966 on which the petitioners are relying must be read as a whole. Only a portion of circular in favor of the petitioners could not be taken into consideration. The said Circular, on which the petitioners have put reliance mentions in its concluding paragraph as under:
"Although each case of cheating on the part of the conductors will be decided on its merits, the above procedure is being laid down as a general policy to be followed as guiding principle while dealing with the cases of aforesaid nature but it will be at the discretion of Enquiry Officer to impose a severe punishment even in the first or second case provided the Enquiry Officer is convinced and the evidence justified that the case involved deliberate cheating on the part of the accused employee by non-issue of tickets or issue of tickets of lesser denomination after having collected the fare. The attention of employees should also be drawn to para 12 of the Executive Instructions laying down the duties of conductors for strict compliance."
13. Now apart from the above we refrain from making any observation as to whether the proposed action is proper or not as the same may affect prejudicially to the parties. We would only observe that the petitioners should raise the contention regarding the question of punishment before the Depot Manager in their replies to show-cause notice. It is for the Disciplinary Authority to consider the question of awarding punishment and we do not want to express any opinion in that regard. Petitioners can raise the question of punishment before the Appellate Authority. We have to also observe here that if ultimately petitioners happened to meet with the punishment as anticipated by them they have the efficacious remedy to approach the Labour Court for improper and wrongful dismissal as claimed by them as they are workers. The question of punishment could be adequately raised in those proceedings. It is not possible for us to say at this stage whether the proposed punishment is proper or not.
14. Thus we have come to the conclusion that Depot Manager is a Competent Authority on account of delegation of powers to him to take disciplinary action. Therefore, the notices issued by him are quite valid and legal and therefore we do not like to interfere with the same by exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus all these petitions are premature as there is no final decision regarding the disciplinary action taken against the present petitioners. It must be also further mentioned here that the petitioners are workmen and therefore even in case there happened to be unfortunate orders against them then they will have to take the remedy under the Industrial Dispute Act before a Labour Court. Thus we hold that all these petitions are liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss them with no order as to costs.
All the interim applications in all Writ Petitions are also stand dismissed and interim orders stand vacated.