SHIV DAYAL Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of termination No. OD-I/GO/PF/Con/88/4895 dated 21.10.1988 (Annexure-`A') and the order No. PLD-S/4(2)/89/197 dated 7.2.1989 rejecting his appeal therefrom. The petitioner has also sought reinstatement with consequential benefits of service including pay and allowances in full.

(2.) The petitioner was employed as a conductor with the Delhi Transport Corporation. He joined service on 16.2.1970 and was confirmed on 30.5.1973. It is the petitioner's case that he fell ill and could not attend to his duties on account of his ailments which included a psychiatric problem. The petitioner has annexed several medical certificates dated 13.7.1988, 9.11.1988 and 24.11.1988 to substantiate this allegation of his. Though, the Respondents in their Reply Affidavit have categorically stated that no such medical certificates were ever received by them and that the petitioner abstained from duty without any authorisation and without applying for leave. The petitioner contends that despite the fact that he was unable to attend to his duties for reasons beyond his control his services were terminated under Regulation 14(10)(c) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations 1952 (hereinafter referred to as, "the said Regulations") vide the impugned termination letter dated 21.10.1988. His appeal dated 19.12.1988 has also been rejected as communicated vide the said order dated 7.2.1988. He further submits that the Regulation 14(10)(c) itself has been struck down by a Division Bench of this Court as being unconstitutional vide its judgment in Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Daya Nand and Others etc., in LPA Nos. 208,181, 28-38/2002 decided on 7.5.2002.

(3.) I have heard arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and have gone through the pleadings of the parties as well as the said Division Bench Judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner. Neither the validity of the medical certificates nor their alleged submission to the Respondents need be looked into inasmuch as this petition can be disposed of on the question of validity of Regulation 14(10)(c) of the said Regulations itself.