DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. RAM PHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 13.09.1988 which had endorsed the findings of the trial Judge dated 29.10.1986 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Ram Phal against the defendant/Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) seeking a prayer that his termination order 21.08.1984 be declared null and void had been decreed in his favour.

(2.) PRESENT suit was a suit for declaration and injunction. The plaintiff was an employee of the DTC. He was working as a conductor. He had been appointed on 18.06.1983; he was put on probation w.e.f. 08.04.1983 for a period of one year. His probation was extended for the second time w.e.f. 24.04.1984 to 07.04.1985. The probation was extended for the reason that an FIR had been registered against the plaintiff under Sections 304/148/144/323/324 IPC at police station Rahi, Sonepat. The plaintiff had been acquitted on 17.01.1985, this was admittedly in the intervening period of the second extended probation period. His services however already stood terminated on 21.08.1984. These are admitted facts.

(3.) WHETHER the plaintiff is entitled to relief claimed in para 9-C of plaint? OPP" 5. Oral and documentary evidence was led. Both the concurrent findings were in favour of the plaintiff. Both the courts below held that the civil court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit of such a nature; since the claim of the plaintiff was that his termination is violative of the statutory rules and regulations governing his service conditions such a suit was maintainable. Further the probation of the plaintiff could not have been extended for the second time without recording reasons; this was violative of rule 7 of the DRTA.