JAGE RAM Vs. DTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition the Petitioner impugns the award dated 31 st January, 1996 whereby the dismissal of the Petitioner on account of his conviction for offence under Section 279/304A Indian Penal Code, 1860 was held to be justified. It was also held that punishment of removal was not disproportionate to the misconduct attributed as due to the rash and negligent driving of the Petitioner, 5 persons lost their lives and 17 others were seriously injured..

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the services of the Petitioner were illegally terminated without any departmental enquiry. Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short the ID Act) states that termination pursuant to disciplinary action would not amount to retrenchment. In the present case since no disciplinary enquiry was conducted, the termination was in violation of Section 25F and admittedly the benefits under Section 25F of ID Act having not been given the termination was illegal and liable to be set aside. Though in the appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge the conviction of the Petitioner was upheld, however he had filed a revision petition which was pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and thus the proceedings in the criminal trial had not culminated to a logical conclusion. The ID Act is the principal Act and any rules of the Respondent made ARE supplementary to it. Thus, this Court is required to look into whether the Respondent could remove the Petitioner from services under Clause 15(2) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Services) Regulations, 1952 (in short DRTA Regulations) read with Section 4(e) of The Delhi Road Transport Laws (Amendment) Act, 1971 by order dated 12 th October, 1988 in view of the conviction by the Criminal Court. A show cause notice dated 29 th August, 1988 was received by the Petitioner on 11 th October, 1988 wherein only 72 hours were granted to him to inform about the outcome of the appeal in the criminal case. However, without any reply from the Petitioner, his services were terminated. The proceedings in a Criminal Court and disciplinary enquiry are different and since the Petitioner has been denied the defence qua the disciplinary enquiry, he is liable to be reinstated. Further office order No.201 of the Respondent dated 24 th November, 1954 states that departmental action against the employee convicted by the Court will be taken up only after the employee's appeal has been decided by the Appellate Court. Reliance is placed on Telecom District Manager & Ors. Vs. Keshab Deb, 2008 8 SCC 402. In an identical situation where bus driver Bhajan Lal was convicted, no action of removal was taken by the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent has discriminated against the Petitioner in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner has since passed away on 5 th September, 2007 and thus no relief of reinstatement is being prayed, however the legal heirs of the Petitioner are entitled to consequential monetary relief including back wages, interest etc.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand contends that show cause notice was given to the Petitioner in June to which the Petitioner replied vide his letter dated 7 th June, 1982. The letter dated 29 th August, 1988 was not a show cause notice and was sent to the Petitioner asking him to inform about the status of the appeal. Since the Petitioner did not inform about the status of the appeal, the management found out the judgment and as the conviction of the Petitioner was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, his services were terminated. Clause 15(2) of the DRTA Regulations provides for the penalties which could be awarded for a misconduct and removal/dismissal from the service are part thereof. Further Section 4(e) of The Delhi Road Transport Laws (Amendment) Act, 1971 (in short the Act) provide that all rules, regulations, appointments, notifications, bye-laws, schemes, orders etc., made under the DRTA Act or the Delhi Municipal Act, 1957 and in force immediately before such establishment, will be deemed to continue unless and until they are superseded by regulations made under that Sections. Section 95(2) provides that no officer or employee shall be punished unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed provided that the sub-Section shall not apply where an officer or employee is removed or dismissed on the ground of conduct which had led to his conviction on criminal charge. Thus, on the conviction by the Criminal Court for offence under Section 279/304A Indian Penal Code, 1860 which has been upheld in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, the management was not required to conduct any further disciplinary enquiry and was justified in removing the Petitioner from service on this ground. The Petitioner cannot claim any equality with Bhajan Lal who was convicted but his services were not terminated as the right to equality is for a legal right and not for a wrong. There is no infirmity in the impugned award. Hence the petition be dismissed.