RAMA NAND Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present .petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dt.1.6.1988 passed by the respondent corporation removing the petitioner from service under Clause 15 (2)(VI) of the D.R.T.A. (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulation, 1952. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor by the respondent corporation on 5.1.78. On 22.9.87, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner contending, .inter alia, that from the leave record of the petitioner for the period from January, 198 7/08/1987, it was revealed that the petitioner was 'habitual of availing excessive leave without pay as he had availed 95 days leave without pay during the aforementioned period, which caused heavy loss to the Corporation. On the aforesaid charges, an enquiry was conducted against him and on completion of the enquiry, a show cause notice was Issued to the petitioner on 12.4.88 directing the petitioner to show cause why he should not be removed from service. The petitioner failed, to submit any reply to the aforesaid show cause even In spite of reminders Issued thereto. Accordingly, the Impugned order dt. 1.6.88 was passed by the ' respondent corporation removing the petitioner from service.

(2.) Mr. Charya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that trie present writ petition Is covered by the decision of the Supreme

(3.) Respondents were not represented by a counsel during the course of arguments but they have filed a counter affidavit as also an additional affidavit, the'contents of which 'were taken note of by me.. The chargesheet was issued to the -petitioner under Clause 15 (2) of the D.R.T.A. (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952. A copy of the relevant provisions 'of the said Regulations has been placed on record. Clause 15.2'thereof relates to the penalties that could be imposed by the disciplinary authority on the delinquent official. Removal, from service of the Delhi Road Transport is one of the penalties .that could ,be imposed by the disciplinary authority. Gene,ral provisions under Clause 19 of the Standing Order" governing the conduct of the D.R.T.A. employees deal with the concept of misconduct according to which if the misconduct is proved action could be taken under clause 15 of the Regulations. Sub-Clause (h) of Clause 19 includes "habitual negligence of duties and lack of interest in the Authority"s .work", as misconduct. It is stated by.the .respondents in their pleadings that in the present case, the employee was found' guilty of misconduct under clause , 19(h) and" was chargesheeted accordingly. A perusal of the aforesaid sub-clause (h) would indicate that'if a person is habitually negligent of his duty and if there is lack of interest in,the authority's work, the. same would amount to misconduct and if the said misconduct is proved in respect of the delinquent official, action could be taken in terms of Clause 15 of the Regulations, when a person is absent for a long period from duties it is established that he is habitually negligent of his duties and there is lack of interest in the work. So far the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the absence was regularised by granting leave without pay and, therefore, the action taken by the respondents for unauthorised absence is illegal is concerned, the same cannot be accepted, for here the action is not taken against 'the petitioner for unauthorised absence but because of his habitual negligence of duties. He had been absent for a long time, which though;' was regularised in accordance with the Rules could not amount to absolving him from the position that there is negligence of duty and lack of interest by habitually remaining absent for a long period of.95 days. It is contended in the additional affidavit that even earlier to the aforesaid period the petitioner had been regular absentee from duty and in support of the said contention a,copy of the past record of the petitioner dt.24.8.87 and a copy of-combined leave-record and past record are placed on record as Annexure R-2. It is stated in the additional affidavit that the petitioner had been habitually irregular/negligent in attending his duties and been regular absentee throughout during the period .of/ ft^sCs^er vice in the Corporation, which is revealed from his past record. A copy of the monthly attendance register of relevant period i.e. January, 1987 to August, 1987 is also placed on record, which indicates that the petitioner remained- absent in his services of the Corporation for 95 days without prior permission or leave. ,It is also stated that even in most of the aforesaid period he remained absent without moving any application for seeking permission and in respect of some other period he had although furnished medical certificate from private medical practitioner, permission was 'rejected by the concerned authority.' The aforesaid documents placed on record indicate that the petitioner had been absent from duties 'for a long period of time. On the basis 'of the said, records enquiry, was conducted .against the petitioner on the ground that he is habitually negligent of his duties and there is lack of interest in the authority's work, which fact was found to be proved during the course 'Of enquiry by the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority. Accordingly action was taken against the petitioner by the respondents by removing him' from service. The said records are sufficient to justify the conclusion of the respondents that the petitioner was habitually negligent in his duties and that ther.e was lack , of interest in the authority's work.