Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dilbag Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation, Govt. Of ... on 11 December, 2019
1
OA 2531/2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No. 2431/2015
This the 11th day of December, 2019
Hon'ble Mr. S.N. Terdal, Member(J)
Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Bishnoi, Member (A)
Dilba
Dilbagh Singh
Aged 41 years
Driver, B.No. 26671, SVD
R/o WZ-9-97, Sant Nagar (Extension)
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi - 110018.
...Applicant
(By Advocate :Mr. Anil Mittal with Ms. Komal Aggarwal)
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation
I.P. Estate
New Delhi - 110002.
(through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director)
...Respondent
(By Advocate: Mr. Koonal Tanwar for Mr. Karunesh Tandon)
ORDER (ORAL)
Mr. S.N. Terdal :
Heard Mr. Anil Mittal, counsel for applicant and Mr. Koonal Tanwar appearing as proxy for Mr. Karunesh Tandon, counsel for respondent, perused the pleadings and all the documents.
2. This OA has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"(i) Quash notice dt.24-6-2014 (Annexure - A.1), order dt.3-3-2015 (Annexure-A.2) and order dt. 27-5-2015 (Annexure-A.3) ;
(ii) direct the respondent to reinstate the applicant in service with all the consequential benefits such as continuity, seniority, promotion and full back wages with interest etc."
3. The relevant facts of the case are that the applicant in the CBR declaration form in response to para 12 of the said form did not disclose his involvement in a criminal case FIR No. 108/95 U/s 392/34 IPC filed under 2 OA 2431/2015 Police Station - Gohana (Haryana). There was a warning in the aforesaid form which specifically stated that on furnishing the false information or suppression of any information, his services would liable to be terminated. The said warning is extracted below :
"WARNING :- The furnishing of false information or suppression of any information in the Attestation Form would be disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unit for the employment under Government. If the fact that false information has been furnished or there has been suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form comes to notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated."
4. As he did not furnish that information, a show cause notice was issued on 24.06.2014 but the applicant did not choose to give any explanation to the said show cause notice. Taking note of his non giving the explanation to the show cause notice by order dated 03.03.2015, the applicant was terminated from service. The applicant was not a confirmed employee as on the date of issuance of show cause notice. Challenging the show cause notice as well as termination letter dated 27.05.2015, the applicant has filed this OA.
5. The counsel for respondent brought to our notice the terms and conditions in the appointment letter issued to the applicant dated 15.04.2011 wherein it was specifically stated that the appointment of the applicant was purely temporary and in case of giving false information, he would be terminated without assigning any reason before his confirmation. The said conditions are enumerated in paras 8 and 12 which are extracted below :
"8. His appointment is purely temporary. He shall be on probation for a period of 2 years from the date of his temporary 3 OA 2431/2015 appointment. During the period of his probation, his services shall be liable to be terminated at any time without notice and without assigning any reason thereof. He shall be considered as having completed the period of probation satisfactorily only when a notification to this effect is issued by the Competent Authority.
12. In case of finding any information given by him incorrect at any stage, his services are liable to be discharged from the threshold. Thus, he would not be given any service benefit for the period as the initial eligibility/requirement would not stand satisfied."
6. The counsel for the applicant vehemently and strenuously submitted that in view of the circular dated 10.09.2013, the respondents should have exercised the discretion and exonerated him as he was involved in a petty offence when he was only 21 years of age and he was acquitted on 03.03.1998 before his appointment. The said circular dated 10.09.2013 is extracted below :
"Further to this office circular memo No. PLD-III/ (Misc.)/2012/3373 dated (Copy furnished overleaf), it has been observed that the services of the drivers were terminated on account of non-disclosure of information relating to the case(s) which have already been decided by the Court of Law. Therefore, the following instruction is hereby issued for information/necessary action by all concerned :-
The criminal cases where the employee was acquitted or fined for petty offences prior to his appointment in DTC may not be treated suppression of material information or concealment of fact. Petty offence in normal course for the post of Driver will be Section 323/34 IPC.
This issues with the approval of the competent authority."
7. The counsel for applicant further submitted that the offence in which applicant was involved has nothing to do with driving profession, as such, the offence should not be considered as serious offence. In support of his submission, he relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme 4 OA 2431/2015 Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and others Vs. Sandeep Kumar. The submission is not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case and as such cannot be countenanced.
8. The counsel for the respondent rightly submitted that the said circular is applicable in case the applicant was acquitted in a petty offence like 323 IPC but the applicant was involved in a robbery case, namely, u/s 392 IPC, as such this circular is not applicable to the applicant.
9. In view of facts and circumstances, this OA is without any merit. Accordingly, OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(A.K. Bishnoi) (S.N. Terdal) Member (A) Member (J) /anjali/ 5 OA 2431/2015