Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Raja Ram vs Delhi Transport Corporation, Govt. Of ... on 20 July, 2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No.874 of 2015
Orders reserved on : 12.07.2018
Orders pronounced on : 20.07.2018
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Gupta, Member (J)
Hon'ble Ms. Praveen Mahajan, Member (A)
Raja Ram S/o Shri Shiromani, aged 63 years, Driver,
r/o DDA Janta Flats,
retired on 30.11.2011
House No.558, GP-1, Pocket No.C
Hasthal, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
....Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri S.N. Sharma)
VERSUS
1. The Chairman,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Indraprastha Estate,
New Delhi.
2. The Regional Manager (W)
DTC, Mayapuri Depot,
New Delhi.
3. The Depot Manager,
Mayapuri Depot,
New Delhi.
.....Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Swati Jain for Ms. Ruchira Gupta)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Gupta, Member (J) :
The applicant has filed the instant OA for seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) Quash the impugned order/reply dated
15.12.2014;
2
(b) Quash the order no. मा. पु . डि/स. प्रा./ या/CS- 32/01/02/304 dated 26.07.2002 and direct the respondents to grant one increment from the date which was due on the basis of Hon‟ble Court order dated 20.02.2013 with all consequential benefits.
(c) Direct the respondents to grant 1st ACP & 2nd ACP to the applicant by due dates as per ACP Scheme of Govt. of India, Ministry of Personal Public Grievances and Pension (Deptt. Of Personal) vide no.35054/9/97(D) dated 09th August 1999 rather granted on 01.01.2006 with all consequential benefits.
(d) Pass any other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the applicant.
(e) Allow the O.A. with cost."
2. Brief facts of the case, as stated in the OA by the applicant, are that he was appointed as Driver on 10.06.1977 in Delhi Transport Corporation (in short „DTC‟), Delhi. The applicant worked as Driver for two years on daily wages basis and subsequently, he was confirmed on the said post on 9.6.1979. Since then he had worked in various Depots of DTC.
2.1 The applicant retired from service on 30.11.2011 on superannuation from Mayapuri Depot, DTC after serving 32 years 11 months 21 days regularly with the respondents.
2.2 The respondents neither promoted the applicant to the next grade of Driver nor granted 1st ACP and 2nd ACP which were due in the years 1991 and 2003 under ACP Scheme as per para 4 of the 5th Central Pay Commission vide Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Deptt. of Personnel and Training) letter dated 9.8.1999 (Annexure A3).
2.3 The applicant made a representation on 22.3.2013 to the Depot Manager, Mayapuri DTC, New Delhi and Managing 3 Director, DTC, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi and again on 8.8.2013 to the Managing Director, DTC enclosing copy of court order dated 20.2.2013 under which the applicant has been acquitted from the charge of rash and negligence driving U/s 279/304A IPC and requested for grant of one increment stopped by respondent no.3 but the respondent neither granted one increment nor any ACP given to the applicant.
2.4 As per para no.4 of Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (DoP&T), letter dated 9.8.1999, the 1st Financial Upgradation under the ACP Scheme shall be allowed after 12 years of regular service. Relevant portion of the said ACP Scheme is as under:-
"4. The first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme shall be allowed after 12 years of regular service and the second upgradation after 12 years of regular service from the date of the first financial upgradation subject to fulfillment of prescribed conditions. In other words, if the first upgradation gets postponed on account of the employee not found fit or due to departmental proceedings, etc this would have consequential effect on the second upgradation which would also get deferred accordingly."
2.5 As the applicant was charge-sheeted on 4.9.2001 and was awarded the punishment of stoppage of his next due one increment with cumulative effect, he has suffered great financial loss for non-grant of 1st ACP and 2nd ACP on due dates and not allowing one increment stopped by the respondent no.3.
2.6 The applicant submitted his legal notice in this regard on 22.11.2014, which was rejected by the respondents vide their reply dated 15.12.2014.
2.7 Feeling aggrieved by rejection of his legal notice, the applicant has filed this OA seeking the reliefs as quoted above.
43. Pursuant to notice issued to the respondents, they filed their reply in which they stated that the applicant was involved in an accident causing the bus to run over both the legs of a man, Mr. Hari Gopal, thus resulting in serious injuries to him. The applicant and the bus were then taken into police custody and the criminal proceedings were initiated against him under Section 279/337 of Indian Penal Code. Even disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant by the respondent Corporation and the applicant was charged with not taking due care of the passengers and continued to drive the bus negligently thereby resulting in an accident and was further charged with violating the rules and regulations. However, the said Mr. Hari Gopal succumbed to the injuries and passed away. FIR was registered against the applicant under the aforesaid Sections of IPC.
3.1. The applicant was found guilty of the charges in the departmental inquiry and a penalty of stoppage of next due one increment with cumulative effect was imposed on him. The applicant was acquitted in the criminal case arising out of FIR No.586/2000 vide order dated 20.2.2013. Thereafter, based on the order of acquittal in the criminal proceedings, the applicant approached the respondent - Corporation by way of representations to reverse the penalty of „stoppage of next due one increment with cumulative effect‟ imposed upon him. The said representation of the applicant was rejected by respondent - Corporation. Thereafter, the applicant sent legal notice dated 22.11.2014 seeking implementation of the order dated 20.2.2013 passed in the criminal case and accordingly allow one increment to him which was stopped with cumulative effect vide order dated 27.7.2002, grant of benefit of 2nd ACP and grant MACP to the applicant. The said legal notice was duly replied to by the respondent - Corporation rejecting the demands of the applicant and the said reply to 5 the legal notice has, inter alia, been impugned in the present OA.
3.2 They further stated that acquittal in the criminal proceedings is per se no ground for relief from the departmental inquiry and the penalty being imposed thereunder. These two are separate proceedings and one cannot have any bearing on the other.
3.3 They also stated that applicant never challenged the inquiry proceedings before any court of law. The applicant did not even challenge the order of penalty imposing „stoppage of next due one increment with cumulative effect‟ on him. Thus, the inquiry proceedings and the said order of penalty have attained finality. Even in the present proceedings, the applicant has not challenged the inquiry proceedings. Any challenge to the order of penalty dated 26.7.2002, and consequences flowing therefrom, suffers from delay and latches and is thus barred by limitation. Further imposition of the penalty based on fairly conducted inquiry cannot be challenged by the applicant on the basis of his acquittal in criminal proceedings.
3.4 The respondents have relied upon the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of West Bengal & Ors vs. Sankar Ghosh, (2014) 3 SCC 610 and Deputy Inspector General vs. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 593.
3.5 They also stated that Annexure I of Assured Career Progression Scheme for Central Govt. civilian employees dated 9th August 1999 enumerates the conditions for grant of benefits. Para 11 of the said Annexure provides that "In the matter of disciplinary/penalty proceedings, grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme shall be subject to rules governing normal promotion." Due to adverse remarks in the ACR of the applicant, he was given his first and second ACPs on 6 1.1.2006. Thus, the respondents have conducted themselves within the framework of its rules and regulations and by following the principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned orders merit no interference from this Tribunal.
4. The applicant has also filed his rejoinder in which refuted the contentions raised by the respondents in their counter affidavit and reiterated the averments made in the OA.
5. We heard Shri S.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, and Ms. Swati Jain for Ms. Ruchira Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.
6. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents have rejected the legal notice submitted by him vide impugned order illegally and arbitrarily without considering the fact that the applicant has been acquitted from the charge of rash and negligence driving initiated against the applicant under Section 279/304A IPC by the learned MM, Tis Hazari Court vide judgment dated 20.2.2013 and the disciplinary proceedings were also initiated in relation to the same incident of accident occurred in 2001. However, the respondents have after completion of departmental proceedings imposed the punishment of stoppage of next due one increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 26.7.2002.
7. Counsel for the respondents submitted that acquittal in the criminal proceedings is per se no ground for relief from the department inquiry which was initiated in the year 2001 and after completion of all the formalities relating to departmental inquiry, the punishment of stoppage of next due one increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon the applicant vide order dated 26.7.2002 and the applicant has not chosen to challenge the said order earlier or even in this 7 OA. As such at this stage, the claim of the applicant is barred by limitation. Counsel further submitted that acquittal of the applicant in the criminal case registered under Sections 279/304A IPC was not a honourable acquittal. Counsel placed reliance on some portion of the observations made in the judgment (supra) and submitted that the applicant was given the benefit of doubt and other circumstances. Hence, it cannot be said that acquittal of the applicant was honourable acquittal.
8. We are unable to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. The contention of the applicant that he should be absolved from the punishment imposed upon him in the departmental proceedings on the ground of his acquittal in the criminal case, has no force, as it is established by several decisions that the criminal and departmental proceedings are independent proceedings and acquittal in a criminal case per se will not affect the departmental proceedings initiated by the department against the applicant. In the present case, the applicant was subjected to departmental inquiry and after completion of inquiry, the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon him. The applicant never challenged the said decision either by filing any appeal or by way of any other judicial proceedings. The said punishment was imposed upon the applicant in the year 2002. Even in the present OA, the applicant has not challenged the said punishment order. Hence, the applicant‟s plea for expulsion of punishment awarded to him in the departmental inquiry is highly belated and is barred by limitation.
9. So far as applicant‟s acquittal in the criminal case is concerned, it has no bearing on imposition of the punishment in the departmental inquiry. Further, from a bare perusal of the judgment delivered by learned MM, Tis Hazari Court, New 8 Delhi in the criminal case registered under Section 279/304A, dated 20.2.2013, we find that it is not a case of honourable acquittal. The said learned Court acquitted the applicant only on the basis of presumptions. It is also made clear that in criminal case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and if the accused succeeds in creating doubts in the mind of the learned Court, he will get the benefit of the same. So far as departmental inquiry is concerned, the position is different as in the departmental inquiry, the inquiry is based on the preponderance of probability. Considering the facts and evidence before the inquiry officer, the inquiry officer has to render his report and the same has to be seen by the disciplinary proceedings whether to accept it or reject it. In this case, report submitted by the inquiry officer was considered and the aforesaid punishment has been awarded to the applicant by the disciplinary authority. The applicant has failed to challenge that punishment. Now after acquittal, which is also not honourable acquittal in the eyes of law, the applicant cannot get benefit of the same and cannot ask for the relief of expulsion/removal of punishment imposed upon by the competent authority in the departmental proceedings.
10. In view of the above discussion, for the foregoing reasons, the present OA, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Praveen Mahajan) (Justice Dinesh Gupta)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ravi/