Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Tejbir vs Delhi Transport Corporation, Govt. Of ... on 2 March, 2026
1
Item No. 26/ C-II O.A. No. 52/2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 52/2018
This the 02nd day of March, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
Tejbir, aged 36 years,
S/o Satyapal,
Ex-Driver, DTC
R/o village & Post
Silana, Distt. Sonepat
Haryana
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Delhi Transport corporation
Through the Chairman cum Managing Director,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
2. The Regional Manager,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Nand Nagri Depot, Delhi.
3. The Dy. Chief General Manager (East)
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Nand Nagri Depot, Delhi.
4. The Depot Manager,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
1.
IP Depot, Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Ayusha Kumar)
KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA
2026.03.12
SAXENA 15:06:28+05'30'
2
Item No. 26/ C-II O.A. No. 52/2018
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) In the present OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 24.1.2013, Appellate authority order dated 01.05.2015 (Annex. A/2), order dated 29.8.2017 (Annex. A/3), Charge sheet, Inquiry Officer report and entire disciplinary proceedings, declaring to the effect that the same are illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice and consequently, pass an order of reinstatement of the applicant in service with all the consequential benefits including the arrears of pay and allowances.
(ii) To allow the OA with cost.
(iii) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case"
2. The claim of the applicant has been contested by the respondents by filing counter reply. Thereafter, the applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating his claim and the grounds pleaded in support thereof.
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance, we have perused the pleadings available on record.
4. It is undisputed that the applicant was appointed to the post of Driver under the respondents w.e.f. 15.07.2011. While he was on probation, the vehicle which was being driven by him met with an accident which led to registration of FIR under Sections 279, 338, KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA 2026.03.12 SAXENA 15:06:28+05'30' 3 Item No. 26/ C-II O.A. No. 52/2018 204A, 427 of the IPC with Police Station Shaibabad, U.P. The applicant was placed under suspension with effect from 07.01.2012 which was revoked subsequently w.e.f. 16.03.2012.
5. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the applicant vide charge memo dated 09.02.2012 (Annexure A-5) alleging negligence in the driving of the applicant. Pursuant to the said charge memo, inquiry officer submitted his report returning the findings of the allegations leveled against the applicant as proved. Keeping in view such proceedings and report, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order dated 24.01.2013 (Annexure A-1) for his removal from service. Aggrieved by such order of the Disciplinary Authority, the applicant submitted his statutory appeal which was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 01.05.2015 (Annexure A-2). Thus, the present OA.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that it has been the case of the applicant before the Disciplinary Authority and in the inquiry that the aforesaid accident was not on account of negligence attributable to the applicant, rather it was in view of the fact that one cyclist, namely Mr. Prem Sharma, rammed into the applicant's vehicle and in turn the cyclist received injuries for which he was taken to hospital. However, such plea of the applicant has not been considered by the respondents in letter and spirit.
KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA
2026.03.12
SAXENA 15:06:28+05'30'
4
Item No. 26/ C-II O.A. No. 52/2018
7. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, further argues that (i) the impugned charge memo is in violation of the respondents' own Circular dated 19.12.1973 which has been reiterated by the respondents in their Circular dated 02.01.2003; inasmuch as such Circular provides that where employees are placed under suspension as a result of serious criminal action against them, they need not be charge-sheeted and action or removal etc. will be considered on the basis of the result of the judicial case without initiating disciplinary enquiry in the matter. Mr. Sharma has placed a copy of the Circulars dated 19.12.1973 and 02.01.2003 on record; (ii) from the very impugned order dated 24.01.2013 it is apparent that the Disciplinary Authority has not considered any of the submissions of the applicant and has passed the said order in a mechanical manner; (iii) the conclusive para of the impugned Appellate order itself proves that no prosecution witness was available on the accident spot at the time of the accident; (iv) the applicant has been acquitted in the aforesaid case FIR by the learned Trial Court vide order/judgment dated 19.04.2016 and such order/judgment has attained finality.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently opposed the claim of the applicant. He has argued that the aforesaid Circulars have not been annexed by the applicant alongwith the OA or rejoinder, therefore, he is not in a position to comment upon them. He has argued that the KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA 2026.03.12 SAXENA 15:06:28+05'30' 5 Item No. 26/ C-II O.A. No. 52/2018 applicant has himself in Para 13 of the OA has asserted that "It is a recongnized principle for road transport, that smaller vehicle must give way to the heavier vehicle. In the instant case, when due to official exigency the applicant was forced to ply his vehicle on a dark night under heavy rain and cold weather, then when suddenly the victim rams his cycle into the applicant's vehicle, on a straight road, the inquiry officer's report holding the applicant and victim partially responsible for the incident is unjustified, and is also not a reasoned report insofar as no reasons are mentioned while arriving at the conclusion."
9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that from the aforesaid assertions it is apparent that the applicant was forced to ply the concerned bus on road despite there being dark, rainy night during cold weather and he probably intends to submit that in such situation he is not clear who has forced him to ply the bus in such circumstances. Furthermore, the applicant thinks as if when the bus is plying, the road should be cleared by all the travelers. He further submits that the applicant has made a statement dated 06.01.2012 which clearly indicates that he was involved in the said accident.
10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA
2026.03.12
SAXENA 15:06:28+05'30'
6
Item No. 26/ C-II O.A. No. 52/2018
11. The applicant has categorically mentioned the Circular dated 19.12.1973 in para 5 (A) of the OA and existence of any such Circular has not been disputed by the respondents in the corresponding para of their counter reply. Moreover, such Circular has been placed on record along with another Circular dated 02.01.2003.
12. Circular dated 19.12.1973 reads as under:
"DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION I.P. TESTATE, NEW DELHI No.AdmI-3(18)/73 Dated:-19.12.73.
ADMINISTRATION & ESTABLISHMENT MANUAL ORDER NO 21.
Sub:-Suspension-Issue of charge-sheet.
Instances have come to notice where charge-sheets are issued to the employees placed under suspension irrespective of the feet whether they were placed under suspension as a result of serious criminal charge against them or whether it is to result of an act connected with their officlas duties on the basis of Para 4 of the Admn. & Establishemnt Manual Order No.7. dated 11.9.73. It is, hereby, clarified that where employees are placed under suspension on a result of serious criminal action against, them, they need not be charge-sheeted and action or removal etc, will be considered on the basis of the result of the judicial case without initiating disciplinary enquiry in the matter. In cases, however, where the acts of employee far which he is being prosecuted connected with his official duties, disciplinary enquiry be ordered if the charges are materialy different from the Criminal charges.
(Sd/-
(S.K. SHARMA) GENERAL MANAGER KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA 2026.03.12 SAXENA 15:06:28+05'30' 7 Item No. 26/ C-II O.A. No. 52/2018 All officer in the Headquartes, Depots, Cnetral Workshop, Sub-Depot Scindia House, Stores Deptt.
All Office Superintendents, Accountants and Asstt. Incharges (in the H.Qrs. Central workshop, sub.Depot, Scindia House Sthores Det. Internal Audit Unit.
The file i.e. file of Shri Saroop Singh Driver, B.No.1155 is in personiel Deptt..
0.S.(A) with 50 apar copies."
13. Further Circular dated 02.01.2003 reads as under:
"DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) I.P.ESTATE: NEW DELHI No. Adm L-3 (18)/2003. Dated: 2.1.2003 CIRCULAR Instances have come to the notice that the cases in which the employees are convicted by the Court of Law, for their involvement in Crim1141 offences, are being referred to Corporate Office for seeking advice in the matter.
In this connection, it is notified for information and necessary action by all concerned that such cases may be dealt with strictly in accordance with Circulars No. Adm I_3 (18)/73 dated 19.12.1973 and Adm 1-3 (18)/79 dated 16.4.1979, copies of which are enclosed fer ready referance.
Enc:-As above Sd/-
(L.C.GOYAL) Dy.C.G.M. (ASC)H.qrs.
All Unit Officers"
14. From the Circular dated 19.12.1973 it is evident that the respondents have themselves provided as a policy decision that where employees are placed under suspension as a result of serious criminal action, they need not be charge-sheeted and the action regarding removal etc. shall be considered in case of such KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA 2026.03.12 SAXENA 15:06:28+05'30' 8 Item No. 26/ C-II O.A. No. 52/2018 employees only on the basis of the result of the judicial case without initiating disciplinary inquiry against them. The Circular dated 02.01.2003 reiterates the provisions of the Circular dated 19.12.1973 and also requires necessary action to be taken by the concerned officers in terms of the Circular dated 19.12.1973.
15. Admittedly, the applicant was involved in the aforesaid FIR. The applicant was also placed under suspension. However, the respondents have issued the impugned charge memo contrary to provisions of the aforesaid Circulars issued by them. Further, the impugned disciplinary order dated 24.01.2013 reads as under:
"DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION I.P. DEPOT, NEW DELHI-02 LETTER NO. IPD/AI(T)/DISK-43/12/2013/128 DATED 24.01.2013 The notice for termination of the service of Shri Tejbir, Driver, Badge No.26405 from Delhi Transport Corporation and show cause notice No.IPD/AI(T)/DISK- 43/12/2012/2110 dated 13.12.2012 were issued and after receipt of the same, the reply to the said notices was carefully perused and the same is not found satisfactory.
Shri Tejbir, Driver, Badge No.26405 is found guilty of serious accident during his probation period and keeping in view the seriousness of the present case, following proposed punishment/penalty is confirmed against him: -
Shri Tejbir, Driver, Badge No,26405 is being terminated from the service of Delhi Transport Corporation from 25.01.2013 under the provisions of Section 15(2) (6) and 9(a) (1) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Services Regulations), 1952.
Shri Tejbir, Driver,, Badge No.26405 15 required to deposit all the items relating to corporation like his Badge, Identity Card/Bus Pass and Medical Card etc. before the KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA 2026.03.12 SAXENA 15:06:28+05'30' 9 Item No. 26/ C-II O.A. No. 52/2018 undersigned within 24 hours of receipt of this letter and if he do not deposit all the aforesaid items within 24 hours from the date of receipt of this letter, then he will have to pay penalty of Rs.2/- per day and if he will lodge a police complaint in respect of the aforesaid items after 24 hours from the receipt of this letter, then he will have to pay Rs.500/- as penalty which will be deducted from the amount payable to him.
Sh. Tejbir Singh Depot Manager
Driver, Badge No.6405
Through: T.I. (Schedule)"
16. From the aforesaid impugned order it is evident that the Disciplinary Authority has neither considered any of the submissions/defence put forth by the applicant nor any prosecution evidence has been placed on record. It appears that the impugned order dated 24.01.2013 has been passed in a mechanical manner.
17.Para 9 of the impugned Appellate order dated 01.05.2015 (Annexure A-2) reads as under:
"9. On finding the reply dated 8.1.13 of show cause notice unsatisfactory, disciplinary authority confirmed the proposed punishment of termination from the services of the Corporation.
On the basis of above material available in the record, it is observed that neither the prosecution witnesses were available on the accident spot at the time of accident nor defence witness of the appellant saw the accident. The damage of the front big glass and head light is sufficient to prove that deceased was hit on the front right side of the bus, not in the middle right side of the bus. The appellant should have been more cautious while driving during the rain which he was not and caused this fatal accident. He was given ample opportunity to defend himself during the detailed enquiry, but he could not save himself and the KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA 2026.03.12 SAXENA 15:06:28+05'30' 10 Item No. 26/ C-II O.A. No. 52/2018 charges levelled against him were proved by the E.O. As he was on probation and the charges were proved, the disciplinary authority did nothing wrong in terminating his services from the Corporation. I do not find any ground to interfere in the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority. Hence, his appeal is rejected."
18. From the aforesaid findings of the Appellate Authority, it is evident that the Appellate Authority has categorically recorded that there was no prosecution witness(es) available on the accident spot. If there were no prosecution witness(es), we fail to understand how the misconduct of negligent driving of the applicant has been proved by the Inquiry Officer and/or the Disciplinary Authority and even by the Appellate Authority while passing the impugned Order(s).
19. Admittedly, the applicant has been exonerated in the aforesaid case FIR by the learned Trial Court by the order/judgment dated 19.04.2016 wherein the learned Trial Court has ordered as under:
"The accused, Tejbir Singh, is acquitted of the charges in Case No. 18/2012, under Sections 279, 338, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad.
The accused is on bail; his bail bond and surety bond are hereby cancelled, and the suretles are discharged from their bail obligations.
The accused shall execute a personal bond under the provisions of Section 437(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, valid for a period of 6 months, with one surety/guarantor for an amount of Rs. 20,000/-, on the condition that if a notice is issued in any appeal or petition filed against this order in a higher court, the accused shall appear before such higher court."
KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA 2026.03.12 SAXENA 15:06:28+05'30' 11 Item No. 26/ C-II O.A. No. 52/2018
20. So far the statement of the applicant dated 06.01.2012 (Annexure R-3) is concerned, it clearly indicates that the same is prior to the issuance of the charge memo. Moreover, even in his such statement dated 06.01.2012, zthe applicant has not admitted that because of his rash and/or negligent driving, the aforesaid accident had occurred.
21. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the OA deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed with following orders:
(i) the impugned charge memo dated 24.01.2013 (Annexure A-1) is set aside.
(ii) The impugned Inquiry Officer's Report, Appellate Authority order dated 01.05.2015 (Annexure A-2), the order dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure A-3) passed rejecting the applicant's representation stand quashed.
(iii) The applicant shall be entitled for reinstatement and also consequential benefits, in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject.
(iv) The aforesaid directions shall be complied by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA
2026.03.12
SAXENA 15:06:28+05'30'
12
Item No. 26/ C-II O.A. No. 52/2018
(v) However, the respondents shall be at liberty to take action against the applicant for alleged misconduct only in accordance with relevant rules and instructions on the subject.
22. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(B. Anand) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ks/
KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA
2026.03.12
SAXENA 15:06:28+05'30'