DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. RAVI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2009 which has endorsed the finding of the trial Judge dated 27.01.2009 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff<RP> Ravi Kumar</RP> seeking a declaration to the effect that the punishment order dated 05.01.1994 confirmed on 01.12.1994 be declared null and void had been decreed.

(2.) THE plaintiff was appointed as a conductor with the defendant corporation i.e.<APL> Delhi Transport Corporation </APL>(DTC). On 25.06.1993 while performing his duty at bus No. 9790, a fee of Rs.3.50 paise was demanded by the plaintiff from the passenger; passenger created a nuisance and was adamant to pay Rs.3.00 only; in the meanwhile the bus arrived at Mohan Nagar; checking staff checked the bus and on a complaint, the plaintiff was apprehended; plaintiff was charge-sheeted on the ground that he had apportioned this sum of Rs.3.00. Enquiry was conducted against him. He was found guilty of 29.10.1993. The order of punishment dated 01.02.1994 was passed. The statutory appeal filed against the order of the Disciplinary Authority was dismissed on 14.06.1996. He preferred a review petition on 11.05.1998 which was disposed on 18.12.1999 informing his that there was no scope for review or revision and the appeal was the last statutory remedy available to him. Thereafter, there was a lull; suit No. 1174/2006 was filed on 26.05.2006.

(3.) ISSUE No. 1 is relevant. It relates to the issue of limitation. Admittedly the statutory appeal filed by the plaintiff before the Department had been dismissed on 14.06.1996. The trial Judge had taken into account the various representations which had been made by the plaintiff in this intervening period i.e. representations dated 01.03.1996, 13.05.1998, 31.07.1996, 23.12.1998, 15.04.1999 and lastly on 20.02.2006 Ex. PW-1/11 to Ex. PW-/17 to hold that these representations had enlarged the period of limitation and the suit filed on 26.05.2006 was within limitation. This finding was endorsed by the first appellate court. This finding is clearly a perversity.