DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. SRI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Delhi Transport Corporation, has challenged the order dated 25th September, 2009 passed in T.A. No.142/2009, titled as 'Sh. Sri Chand v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another' by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, allowing the original application filed by the respondent, and quashing the punishment of removal from service and directing reinstatement of the respondent, however, declining grant of back wages to him. The respondent was appointed as Security Guard with the petitioner and he was charged with demanding money for wine from Sh.Shiv Dayal, ASI and on refusal to give him money to beat him up, and thereafter demanding money from Sh.Shiv Charan, ASI and also beating him under influence of intoxication. Pursuant to the charge sheet dated 12.01.1993, an enquiry was conducted in September, 1993. The petitioner had produced Sh.Pratap Singh and Sh.Ved Pal Singh as its witnesses in support of the allegations made against the respondent of demanding money from Sh.Shiv Dayal and Sh.Shiv Charan, both ASI, and on their refusal beating them.

(2.) Despite the statements by Sh.Pratap Singh and Sh.Ved Pal Singh, prosecution witnesses that nothing as alleged in the charge memo had happened, The enquiry officer had held the respondent guilty and the Disciplinary Authority, the Chief Security Officer issued a show cause notice dated 22nd September, 1993 proposing punishment of removal from service.

(3.) The notice proposing removal from service was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4805/1993 on the ground that the Chief Security Officer was not competent to issue show cause notice proposing punishment, as according to the respondent the power was with the General Manager (CMD) and not the Chief Security Officer. The writ petition was, however, dismissed but the respondent was given permission to reply to show cause notice and to challenge the order, if any, passed by the Disciplinary Authority. After considering the reply to show cause notice given by the respondent, order for removal from service dated 07.01.1997 was passed against the respondent by the Chief Security Officer. The respondent challenged the same in writ petition filed before the High Court, which was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the respondent challenged his order of removal on the ground that the Chief Security Officer lacked original jurisdiction to pass an order of removal and also on the ground that there is no evidence to implicate him or to show culpability of the respondent in respect of memorandum of charge issued against him. The Tribunal has held that the Chief Security Officer had been delegated the power of the Chief Manager, and consequently, he has jurisdiction to pass appropriate order considering the reply to the show cause notice which was given to the respondent.