Delhi District Court
Ramesh Chand vs Managing Director And Ors on 7 October, 2024
THE COURT OF MS NEHA PALIWAL SHARMA
DISTRICT JUDGE-03, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT01-008499-2019
CS DJ No. 598/2019
In the matter of :-
Ramesh Chand
S/o Late Sh. Raja Ram
H. No. 79, Street No.3,
Block A, Mukund Vihar,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094
.....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Managing Director
Delhi Transport Corporation
DTC Head Quarter, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002
2. Chief General Manager
Delhi Transport Corporation
DTC Head Quarter, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002
3. Depot Manager IPD
Delhi Transport Corporation
Indraprastha Depot, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002
.....Defendants
Date of institution : 03.07.2019
Reserved for Judgment : 25.09.2024
Date of decision : 07.10.2024
CS DJ 598/2019 Page No. 1/ 22
Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07 16:56:59
+0530
SUIT FOR DAMAGES OF RS.30,00,000/-
JUDGMENT
(1) This is a suit for damages of Rs.30,00,000/- filed by the plaintiff Ramesh Chand against the defendants, in their official capacity on the ground that the defendants had caused loss of reputation, defamation, harassment and mental pain to the plaintiff by illegally suspending the plaintiff on 27.04.2018 on false grounds, just three days prior to his retirement which was due on 30.04.2018.
(2) Succinctly put, the case of the plaintiff, as per the plaint, is that he was an employee of DTC and was posted as Traffic Inspector at the relevant point of time. He retired from the said post on 30.04.2018 after attaining the age of superannuation. On 27.04.2018 the defendants suspended the plaintiff on false grounds for deputing Sh. Ashok Kumar, Conductor/ LO on bus no. DL-1PD-1733 which was plying on Delhi- Kathmandu route and had departed from Delhi on 25.04.2018. The action of the defendants was totally illegal and unwarranted as the plaintiff was on leave from 24.04.2018 to 27.04.2018. Vide order dated 27.04.2018, defendant no.3 stopped all the dues and retirement benefits, that is, PF, gratuity, leave encashment, pension etc. of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff retired on 30.04.2018, no retirement benefits were given to him by the defendants.
(3) It is further the case of the plaintiff that after his retirement, defendant no.3 issued a charge-sheet dated 19.06.2018 to him on the basis of false and frivolous allegations, to which he filed a detailed reply. He CS DJ 598/2019 Page No. 2/ 22 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07 16:57:08 +0530 even sent a legal notice dated 16.08.2018 to the defendants calling upon them to withdraw the charge-sheet and release the retirement benefits to the plaintiff. Vide letter dated 17.12.2018, the plaintiff was discharged from the charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 19.06.2018 by the disciplinary authority of defendant no.3 and all the retirement benefits were released to the plaintiff. Though the retirement benefits were released to the plaintiff, but due to the illegal acts of defendant no.3, the plaintiff and his family suffered defamation, mental harassment, pain, agony, loss of social reputation for which the plaintiff is entitled for damages to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/-. Thus, the plaintiff had prayed that defendants be directed to pay damages of Rs.30,00,000/- to him towards loss of reputation, defamation, harassment, mental pain and agony because of the illegal acts of the defendants.
(4) Summonses for settlement of issues were sent to the defendants pursuant to which written statement was filed on behalf of all the defendants. Preliminary objections were taken by the defendants that the suit is not maintainable as the same is baseless and without any grounds. The suit has not been valued properly and is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff had alleged defamation, mental harassment, pain, agony and loss of reputation but had failed to support the said allegations with proper documents/ evidence and pleadings. The averments made in the plaint are vague and general in nature and there is nothing to support the plaintiff's claim. The suspension of the plaintiff was in terms of the service rules and regulations of DTC. Post suspension, the plaintiff was issued a charge- sheet as per service rules. He was given appropriate opportunity to CS DJ 598/2019 Page No. 3/ 22 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07 16:57:18 +0530 represent his case before the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority after going through the response of the plaintiff, dropped the charge-sheet and closed the inquiry due to absence of relevant evidence. There is no illegality and irregularity in the said action and accordingly, his dues were released. The plaintiff had arbitrarily filed the suit for damages for Rs.30 lacs. As per service record of the plaintiff, he had violated the service rules and regulations several times and was involved in irregularities towards defendants for which he was also punished by the disciplinary authority from time to time.
(5) It is further the case of the defendants that the DTC is operating Delhi-Kathmandu bus services with effect from 24.11.2014 to facilitate the commuters of two nations, that is, India and Nepal. The plaintiff Ex T.I. Token No. 31670 was transferred to IP Depot from Scindia House, DTC and since then was working as In-charge Dr. Ambedkar Terminal, that is, the originating point of the said bus service. A report was submitted by Sh. Balbir Singh, ATI, Token No. 31212, which was received in the office through Manager (Mec.) IPD on 27.04.2018, as per which Bus No. DL- 1PD-1733 was detained by Nepal Police on 26.04.2018 under Section A:B 172 of Nepal Government at Kali Mata Police Station as during the checking of the bus, unauthorized clothes amounting to Rs.6,64,400/- and unauthorized medicines amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- were found in the bus. On the basis of the report of Sh. Balbir Singh, ATI, one late Sh. Ashok Kumar, Conductor B. No. 23434, who was the Liaison Officer of the bus no. DL-1PD-1733 on 25/26.04.2018 and the plaintiff Sh. Ramesh Chand, Ex T.I. token no. 31670 were suspended with immediate effect vide letter CS DJ 598/2019 Page No. 4/ 22 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07 16:57:26 +0530 no. IPD/AI(T)/Disc-2/2018/811 dated 27.04.2018 by then Depot Manager.
(6) It is further the case of the defendants that the plaintiff was acting as In-charge of Dr. Ambedkar Terminal, Delhi till his retirement and the official mobile and SIM bearing no. +918744073245 was also with him. Moreover, neither in writing nor verbally directions/ instructions were issued by the plaintiff for handing over the charge of International Bus operation to any other staff person working at Dr. Ambedkar Terminal. No prior information was given by the plaintiff and no remark was mentioned in office register available at Dr. Ambedkar Terminal in respect of his leave from 24.04.2018 to 27.04.2018. The decision of his suspension was taken by the then Depot Manager after going through the report of Sh. Balbir Singh, ATI and in the light of facts of the incident which took place on 26.04.2018 at Nepal and as per rules and regulations of the Corporation as well as, as per necessary approval given by the competent authority, before issuing the charge-sheet. The retirement/ financial benefits of the plaintiff were stopped as per rules and regulations of the Corporation till finalization of the case. Moreover, after finalization of the case, all the retirement/ financial benefits were released timely in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants had not taken any step in violation of service rules and regulation that could have caused the plaintiff any mental pain, agony, loss of reputation and defamation as falsely averred in the pleadings.
(7) In the reply on merits, the defendants had specifically denied each and every contention of the plaintiff and it is reiterated that the CS DJ 598/2019 Page No. 5/ 22 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07 16:57:33 +0530 plaintiff neither in writing nor verbally instructed/ directed to handover the charge of International Bus operation to any other staff working at Dr. Ambedkar Terminal. No prior information was given by him and no remark was mentioned in the office register available at Dr. Ambedkar Terminal with regard to his leave from 24.04.2018 to 27.04.2018. As per rules and regulations of the department, the employee/ officer against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending, is not entitled for payment of retirement benefits till the proceedings are completed. All actions were taken by them in terms of service rules and regulations of the Corporation. Thus, it is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
(8) Replication was filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of the defendants wherein the plaintiff had reiterated his stand as stated in the plaint and denied the contentions of the defendants as stated in the written statement.
(9) After perusal of the pleadings of both the parties, following issues were framed on 18.02.2020 by the learned Predecessor of this Court for trial, namely:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages as prayed for? OPP
2. Relief.
(10) At the stage of plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff had examined two witnesses. The plaintiff Ramesh Chand examined himself as PW1. PW-1 had tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.PW1/A and had reiterated the contents of the plaint in his affidavit. He had relied upon the CS DJ 598/2019 Page No. 6/ 22 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07 16:57:41 +0530 following documents in his evidence by way of affidavit:
1. Certified copy of letter of retirement dated 13.11.2017, Ex.PW1/1.
2. Certified copy of letter dated 27.04.2018, Ex.PW1/2.
3. Certified copy of letter dated 19.06.2018, Ex.PW1/3.
4. Certified copy of reply sent by the plaintiff to DTC dated 07.07.2018, Ex.PW1/4.
5. Certified copy of attendance register of April 2018, Ex.PW1/5.
6. Certified copy of allocation, Ex.PW1/6.
7. Original postal receipts, Ex.PW1/7.
8. Copy of identity card issued by DTC, Mark A.
9. Copy of letter of retirement dated 01.05.2018, Mark B.
10. Copy of letter sent by Conductor to DTC, Mark C.
11. Copy of letter dated 17.12.2018 issued by DTC to the plaintiff, Mark D.
12. Copy of letter dated 31.12.2018 issued by DTC to the plaintiff, Mark E.
13. Copy of letter dated 01.01.2019 issued by DTC to Sh.
Subodh Kumar, Mark F.
14. Certified copy of legal notice dated 29.03.2019, Mark G. (11) PW1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendants at length. He, in his cross-examination, had deposed that he was In-charge of Delhi to Kathmandu, Nepal and Delhi to Lahore, Pakistan bus services CS DJ 598/2019 Page No. 7/ 22 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07 16:57:49 +0530 from 2016 to 2018 and was the supervisor who operated the above mentioned routes. He voluntarily stated that three months prior to his retirement, that is, from January 2018 an ATI namely Sh. Balbir Singh having token no. 31212 was appointed to take his position as he was going to retire on 30.04.2018. He admitted that he had not assigned his work, either in writing or verbally, to anyone during his leave period. He gave a voluntary statement that from 12.04.2018 Sh. Balbir Singh ATI was looking after his work of supervisor as he was going to retire from the services on 30.04.2018 vide allocation letter Ex.PW1/6.
(12) PW1 further deposed that Sh. Ashok Kumar, Conductor was allocated by the Depot Manager and ATI Balbir Singh from 25.04.2018 and Sh. Ashok Kumar went to Nepal on the above mentioned period, that is, 25.04.2018 to 27.04.2018. He admitted that as per the service record, he had violated the rules and regulations several times but he was discharged by the Corporation. The retirement benefits stopped by the Corporation were released to him in February 2019.
(13) PW2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Goyal had deposed that he was the ex- employee of DTC and had retired from the post of Chief General Manager. He deposed that as per the rules and regulations of DTC, if an employee is on leave, in his place another employee is appointed by DTC. Further, according to the rules and regulations of the DTC, the employee appointed by DTC in the place of employee who is on leave, will be responsible solely for the mishappening in case mishappening occurs in the leave period. He further deposed that DTC or any other organization cannot CS DJ 598/2019 Page No. 8/ 22 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07 16:57:57 +0530 charge-sheet any employee after retirement. He filed his Aadhar Card Ex.PW2/1 (OSR) in support of this affidavit.
(14) PW2, in his cross-examination, admitted that the incident did not occur during his service tenure and he retired on 31.07.2017.
(15) Vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's evidence was closed on 31.05.2023 and the matter was fixed for defendants' evidence.
(16) At the stage of defendants' evidence, the defendants had examined three witnesses. The defendants had examined their ATI at Dr. Ambedkar Stadium Terminal, Delhi Gate, DTC namely Sh. Parmanand as DW1. DW-1 had tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A and had reiterated the contents of the written statement in his affidavit. He had relied upon the following documents in his evidence by way of affidavit:
1. Copy of his Aadhar Card, Ex.DW1/1 (OSR).
2. Copy of his ID card issued by DTC, Ex.DW1/2 (OSR).
3. Suspension letter dated 27.04.2018, Ex.DW1/3.
4. Charge-sheet dated 19.06.2018, Ex.DW1/4.
5. Reply of charge-sheet dated 07.07.2018, Ex.DW1/5 (colly).
6. Decision of disciplinary authority dated 17.12.2018, Ex.DW1/6.
7. Noting proceedings of Enquiry Officer dated 17.12.2018, Ex.DW1/7 (colly).
8. Copy of Rule dated 01.05.2012, Mark A (mentioned as Ex.DW1/8 in the affidavit of evidence).CS DJ 598/2019 Page No. 9/ 22 Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07 16:58:06 +0530
9. Copy of records of Ramesh Chand regarding irregularities dated 12.07.2018, Ex.DW1/9.
10. Copy of report dated 27.04.2018 submitted by Balbir Singh, Mark B (mentioned as Ex.DW1/10 in the affidavit of evidence).
11. Copy of rules and regulations, 1952, Mark C (mentioned as Ex.DW1/11 in the affidavit of evidence).
12. Copy of procedure regarding disciplinary actions and appeals dated 05.08.1952, Mark D (mentioned as Ex.DW1/12 in the affidavit of evidence).
13. Copy of retirement letter dated 01.05.2018, Ex.DW1/13.
14. Copy of payment of gratuity letter dated 18.04.2019, Ex.DW1/14.
15. Copy of CPF releasing letter dated 07.08.2018, Ex.DW1/15.
16. Copy of letter dated 01.01.2019, Ex.DW1/16.
(17) DW1 was cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. He, in his cross-examination, deposed that he was not on duty and was on leave on 25.04.2018 and came to know about the incident when he joined the office after four days leaves. He is not concerned with the legal affairs of DTC. He was asked by the Depot Manager to depose as he was Conductor at Ambedkar Terminal in 2018.
(18) DW1 further deposed that he was not aware whether plaintiff was on leave on 25.04.2018. He admitted that if any employee is on leave, CS DJ 598/2019 Page No. 10/ 22 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07 16:58:14 +0530 the charge is handed over to another employee for the time being. He is not aware whether Balbir made allocation or not or whether plaintiff was on leave or not on 25.04.2018.
(19) DW2 Balbir Singh was the ex-employee of DTC who retired from the post of ATI, DTC. DW2 had tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW2/A and had reiterated the contents of the written statement in his affidavit. He had relied upon the following documents in his evidence by way of affidavit:
1. Copy of his Aadhar Card, Ex.DW2/1 (OSR).
2. Copy of his ID card issued by DTC, Ex.DW2/2 (OSR).
3. Suspension letter dated 27.04.2018, already Ex.DW1/3 (mentioned as Ex.DW2/3 in the affidavit of evidence).
4. Charge-sheet dated 19.06.2018, already Ex.DW1/4 (mentioned as Ex.DW2/4 in the affidavit of evidence).
5. Reply of charge-sheet dated 07.07.2018, already Ex.DW1/5 (colly) (mentioned as Ex.DW2/5 in the affidavit of evidence).
6. Decision of disciplinary authority dated 17.12.2018, already Ex.DW1/6 (mentioned as Ex.DW2/6 in the affidavit of evidence).
7. Proceedings on Enquiry Officer dated 17.12.2018, already Ex.DW1/7 (colly.) (mentioned as Ex.DW2/7 in the affidavit of evidence).
8. Copy of Rule dated 01.05.2012, Ex.DW2/8.CS DJ 598/2019 Page No. 11/ 22 Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07 16:58:21 +0530
9. Copy of records of Ramesh Chand regarding irregularities dated 12.07.2018, already Ex.DW1/9 (mentioned as Ex.DW2/9 in the affidavit of evidence).
10. Copy of report dated 27.04.2018, Mark A.
11. Duty office register and attendance register, Ex.DW2/11 (colly).
12. Copy of rules and regulations, Ex.DW2/12.
13. Copy of procedure regarding disciplinary actions and appeals dated 05.08.1952, Ex.DW2/13.
14. Retirement letter dated 01.05.2018, already Ex.DW1/13 (mentioned as Ex.DW2/14 in the affidavit of evidence)
15. Payment of gratuity letter dated 18.04.2019, already Ex.DW1/14 (mentioned as Ex.DW2/15 in the affidavit of evidence).
16. Copy of CPF releasing letter dated 07.08.2018, already Ex.DW1/15 (mentioned as Ex.DW2/16 in the affidavit of evidence).
17. Copy of letter dated 01.01.2019, already Ex.DW1/16.
(20) DW2 was cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. He deposed in his cross-examination that at the time of incident on 25.04.2018, he was posted as Assistant Traffic Inspector (ATI) in the Terminal. He had admitted that he was not In-charge of allocation of duties and volunteered that he was only supervising. He denied that on 25.04.2018 he had prepared allocation chart of Conductor Ashok Kumar.
CS DJ 598/2019 Page No. 12/ 22 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07 16:58:30 +0530
He admitted that in the absence of Depot In-charge, he was assigned verbally as In-charge of Ambedkar Terminal and further stated that on 25.04.2018 no one was In-charge of the Depot. He was unable to say who will be held responsible if any accident/ incident took place outside the depot. He was also unable to tell the names of the driver or conductor who were on duty in Indian-Nepal Bus services on 25.04.2018 to 27.04.2018 but had volunteered that the driver was private and the Conductor was a DTC employee namely Ashok Kumar.
(21) DW2 further deposed that he came to know about the incident happened at Nepal in the evening of 26.04.2018 from Skyland Bus Manager and he tried many times to contact the Conductor of the said bus but the Conductor failed to respond. He further deposed that he did not take any action to inform the Depot Manager in writing but had informed him verbally. He further deposed that the Conductor did not inform him at any point of time about the incident. He further deposed that he did not make any allocation on 12.04.2018.
(22) DW3 Sh. Anoop Kumar Gupta was the then Depot Manager of I.P. Depot in 2018. DW3 had tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW3/A and had reiterated the contents of the written statement in his affidavit. He had relied upon the following documents in his evidence by way of affidavit:
1. Copy of his Aadhar Card, Ex.DW3/1 (OSR).
2. Copy of his ID card issued by DTC, Ex.DW3/2 (OSR).CS DJ 598/2019 Page No. 13/ 22 Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07 16:58:42
+0530
3. Copy of report dated 27.04.2018, Mark A (mentioned as Ex.DW3/3 in the affidavit of evidence).
4. Suspension letter dated 27.04.2018 already Ex.DW1/3 (mentioned as Ex.DW3/4 in the affidavit of evidence).
5. Charge-sheet dated 19.06.2018, already Ex.DW1/4 (mentioned as Ex.DW3/5 in the affidavit of evidence).
6. Reply of charge-sheet dated 07.07.2018, already Ex.DW1/5 (colly) (mentioned as Ex.DW3/6 in the affidavit of evidence).
7. Decision of disciplinary authority dated 17.12.2018, already Ex.DW1/6 (mentioned as Ex.DW3/7 in the affidavit of evidence).
8. Proceedings of Enquiry Officer dated 17.12.2018, already Ex.DW1/7 (colly.) (mentioned as Ex.DW3/8 in the affidavit of evidence).
9. Copy of Rule dated 01.05.2012, Ex.DW3/9.
10. Records of Ramesh Chand regarding irregularities, already Ex.DW1/9 (mentioned as Ex.DW3/10 in the affidavit of evidence).
11. Duty office register, Ex.DW2/11 (colly) (mentioned as Ex.DW3/11 in the affidavit of evidence).
12. Attendance register, already Ex.DW2/11 (colly) (mentioned as Ex.DW3/12 in the affidavit of evidence).
13. Copy of rules and regulations, Ex.DW2/12 (mentioned as Ex.DW3/13 in the affidavit of evidence).CS DJ 598/2019 Page No. 14/ 22 Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07 16:58:49
+0530
14. Copy of procedure regarding disciplinary actions and appeals dated 05.08.1952, already Ex.DW2/13 (mentioned as Ex.DW3/14 in the affidavit of evidence).
15. Retirement letter dated 01.05.2018, already Ex.DW1/13 (mentioned as Ex.DW3/15 in the affidavit of evidence)
16. Payment of gratuity letter dated 18.04.2019, already Ex.DW1/14 (mentioned as Ex.DW3/16 in the affidavit of evidence).
17. CPF releasing letter dated 07.08.2018, already Ex.DW1/15(mentioned as Ex.DW3/17 in the affidavit of evidence).
18. Letter dated 01.01.2019, already Ex.DW1/16 (mentioned as Ex.DW3/18 in the affidavit of evidence).
(23) DW3 was cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. He had admitted in his cross-examination that no inquiry was conducted before suspending the plaintiff and had volunteered that the plaintiff was telephonically contacted to inquire about the report filed by Balbir Singh and Manager (Mech) Rajender but the plaintiff could not be contacted. He further deposed that after receiving the report he got verified the same from Balbir Singh and Rajender. The witness further deposed that any retired employee can be charge-sheeted after his retirement, if he has opted pension from DTC. Though the witness deposed that he came to know about the incident occurred at Nepal telephonically but he does not remember the details of the person who had telephoned him nor does he CS DJ 598/2019 Page No. 15/ 22 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07 16:58:56 +0530 remember whether he made any memo regarding the telephonic information.
(24) The witness further deposed that Sh. Ramesh Chand, the then Incharge of Delhi Gate Depot had authorized Sh. Ashok Kumar Conductor to take the bus to Nepal. He further deposed that he (witness) did not make any allocation thereby appointing Sh. Balbir Singh as In-charge of Delhi Gate Depot on 12.04.2018. He had volunteered that Balbir Singh was not the In-charge and was only the duty Officer of Delhi Gate Depot. DW3 further deposed that the employees of a Bus Depot used to mark their attendance in the Attendance Register and in the absence of the In-charge in the Bus Depot, another official is deputed to look-after the work of In- charge. He further deposed that he is not aware if Ramesh Chand was on leave on 12.04.2018 or if he (witness) had sanctioned the leave of Ramesh Chand.
(25) DW3 also deposed that he is not aware if Ramesh Chand was on leave with effect from 24.04.2018 till 27.04.2018. He further deposed that in case of any incident occurring during the travel, both In-charge of the Bus Terminal and Bus Conductor are liable since DTC has given mobile phones to both of them. He denied that on his instructions Balbir Singh had authorized Ashok Kumar as a Conductor to take the bus to Nepal. The witness had volunteered that Sh. Ramesh Chand, the In-charge of Delhi Gate Terminal had authorized Sh. Ashok Kumar.
(26) Vide statement of the Ld. Counsel for the defendants, the defendants' evidence was closed on 19.03.2024 and the matter was fixed CS DJ 598/2019 Page No. 16/ 22 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07 16:59:02 +0530 for final arguments.
(27) Final arguments heard as advanced by Ld. Counsels for both the parties and the material available on record perused.
Issue wise findings are as follows:-
Issue No.1:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages as prayed for? OPP (28) Onus of proving the above issue was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff had claimed damages on the ground that due to his wrongful suspension by the defendants just three days prior to his retirement, he had suffered loss of reputation, defamation, harassment and mental pain.
(29) From the pleadings and evidence adduced by both the parties, the following admitted facts can be culled out that:
a) The plaintiff was an employee of the defendants and was posted as Traffic Inspector, token no. 31670 on 27.04.2018 at Dr. Ambedkar Nagar Terminal, when he was suspended with immediate effect vide suspension letter Ex.DW1/3 of the same date on the basis of the report of DW2 Sh. Balbir Singh.
b) The plaintiff was suspended on the grounds that he was negligent in his duties when he sent Conductor Sh. Ashok Kumar on Delhi-Kathmandu route, he unauthorizedly troubled his junior officials in the Terminal, he misbehaved in the Terminal and ruined the reputation of the department and further CS DJ 598/2019 Page No. 17/ 22 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07 16:59:09 +0530 caused monetary loss to the department.
c) The plaintiff was charge-sheeted on 19.06.2018 vide charge-sheet Ex.DW1/4 and he replied to the said charge-sheet vide reply dated 07.07.2018 Ex.DW1/5.
d) The charge-sheet was dropped by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 17.12.2018 Ex.DW1/6 collectively and it was observed in said order that the plaintiff, as per record, was on leave from 24.04.2018 till 26.04.2018. He was suspended on 27.04.2018. The bus departed on 25.04.2018 when he was on leave and at the time of departure of the bus DW2 Balbir Singh, ATI was acting as In-charge of Dr. Ambedkar Nagar Terminal. The list of passengers was signed by DW2. There was no communication in the department to debar Sh. Ashok Kumar Conductor from going on Delhi-Kathmandu route and therefore, there was no irregularity in sending Sh.
Ashok Kumar Conductor on the said route. The bus was detained by the Nepal Police because of which the scheduled trip of 27.04.2018 was not operated by DTC bus but the passengers who had booked tickets in advance were brought to Delhi by hiring another bus and therefore, there was no financial loss to DTC because of non-operation of scheduled trip. The charges of misbehaviour or creating unpleasant environment also hold no ground as plaintiff was on leave on 25.04.2018. Thus, it was held that plaintiff was not responsible for any of the charges CS DJ 598/2019 Page No. 18/ 22 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07 16:59:15 +0530 leveled in the charge-sheet and therefore, the charge-sheet was dropped.
e) All the retirement/ financial benefits have been released to the plaintiff vide letter dated 01.01.2019 Ex.DW1/16, he was paid gratuity vide letter dated 18.04.2019 Ex.DW1/14 and was paid CPF vide letter dated 07.08.2018 Ex.DW1/15.
(30) Thus, after conduction of disciplinary proceedings, the defendant, which is the department of the plaintiff, had concluded that no charge was made out against the plaintiff.
(31) It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that as the plaintiff was to be superannuated within three days on 30.04.2018, therefore, the action of the defendants to suspend him on 27.04.2018 was malicious and was further not in accordance with rules and regulations of the department as principles of natural justice were not followed prior to suspending the plaintiff and he was condemned unheard. The Ld. Counsel for the defendants had relied upon the rules of the department Ex.DW2/12 (colly) & Ex.DW2/13 (colly) and notification of department Ex.DW2/8. Perusal of the said rules reveals that the appointing authority may place an employee under suspension where disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending and the suspension can be ordered soon after the receipt of the report without calling for preliminary explanation or giving charge-sheet if primafacie circumstances of the case justify it. Further, as per Ex.DW2/8 which is the DTC Board Resolution dated 01.05.2012 bearing no.23/2012 item no.12/2012, the officers/ employees CS DJ 598/2019 Page No. 19/ 22 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07 16:59:23 +0530 against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated will cease to be in service on the date of superannuation but the disciplinary proceedings will continue as if he/ she was in service until the proceedings are concluded and final order is passed in respect thereof. The officer/ employee concerned will not receive any pay and / or allowance after the date of superannuation and will also not be entitled to the payments of retirement benefits till the proceedings are completed and final order is passed there except his/ her contribution to CPF. Thus, in view of the said rules and regulations of the defendant, to which the plaintiff was subjected to being an employee, he could have been suspended on receipt of report even three days prior to his superannuation and could have been charge- sheeted thereafter after his superannuation. Pursuant to the exoneration of the plaintiff from the charge-sheet vide order of the disciplinary authority Ex.DW1/6 and Ex.DW1/7 (colly), the plaintiff vide letter Ex.DW1/16 was given all unpaid dues and all his superannuation benefits were released. Thus, it cannot be said that principles of natural justice were not followed.
(32) It is a settled law that an order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person, rather, it is an order made for ensuring smooth disposal of the proceedings initiated against him. It is further well settled law that the Court cannot interfere in suspension as it is within the exclusive domain of the competent authority. Suspension is a device to keep the delinquent out of the mischief range. The purpose is to complete the proceedings unhindered. Suspension is an interim measure in aid of disciplinary proceedings so that the delinquent may not gain custody or control of papers or take any advantage of his position.
CS DJ 598/2019 Page No. 20/ 22 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07 16:59:30
+0530
(33) It is further settled law that suspension is not punishment and is
merely suspending the relationship between the employer and an employee. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of P. Narasimha Chary v. The State of Telangana and Anr. in Writ Appeal No. 339 of 2020 decided on 16.09.2020.
(34) In view of the above cited case law and the rules and regulations proved by the defendants, by way of evidence, it is held that the defendants were well within their statutory rights to suspend the plaintiff prior to his superannuation. The charge-sheet was closed by the defendants vide order dated 17.12.2018 Ex.DW1/6 & Ex.DW1/7 (colly) and all the retirement benefits were released vide letters Ex.DW1/14, Ex.DW1/15 and Ex.DW1/16.
(35) The plaintiff had, however, claimed that he was defamed and had suffered mental pain, agony and harassment at the hands of the defendants. Though, it is unfortunate that the plaintiff was suspended just three days prior to his superannuation, however, as discussed above, it is well settled law that suspension is not punishment and the department, on the basis of preliminary report, could suspend the plaintiff prior to his superannuation. It is further well settled that disciplinary action by an authority cannot be regarded as a prosecution by the judicial authority and thus cannot be subjected to a suit for malicious prosecution.
(36) Further, with respect to claim of defamation, the plaintiff has not examined any witness to show that he was defamed in the eyes of CS DJ 598/2019 Page No. 21/ 22 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07 16:59:37 +0530 respectable members of the society pursuant to his suspension order.
(37) In view of the above discussions and findings, it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled for any damages from the defendants, as asked for in the plaint.
(38) Accordingly, the issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Relief:
(39) In view of findings given on the above issue, the suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. Considering the nature of the matter, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
(40) File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07 16:59:46
Announced in the Open Court +0530
on 07.10.2024 (Neha Paliwal Sharma)
District Judge-03, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 22 pages and each page bears my signatures.Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.10.07 16:59:53
+0530
(Neha Paliwal Sharma)
District Judge-03, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS DJ 598/2019 Page No. 22/ 22