DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. RAMPHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in this instant case was appointed as a conductor with the Delhi Transport Corporation ("DTC for brevity). The petitioner herein as back as on 23rd May, 1977, on the allegation that on 13th August, 1985, the respondent was found in a state of intoxication while on duty and on allegations that he used unparliamentary language towards the duty officer on duty in the night shift, a charge-sheet dated 22nd August, 1985 was issued to the respondent. It was stated that these actions of the respondent tantamounted to misconduct within the meaning of para 19-f, g, h & m of the standing orders governing the conduct of DTC employees. The charge-sheet required the respondent to explain as to why disciplinary action under Clause 15(2) of the D.R.T.A. (Conditions of Appointment & Rules) Regulation, 1952 read with the Delhi Road Transport Clause (Amendment) Act, 1971 should not be taken against him for these irregularities. The petitioner had framed the following charges against the workman:-

(2.) According to the petitioner before this court, the respondent submitted a reply dated 23rd August, 1985 wherein he stated that after performing duties, the driver had offered him one glass of Campa Cola and that it may be possible that he might have mixed up some wine of which the respondent had no knowledge. In this reply, the respondent clearly stated that he was in full senses and that he had correctly deposited the cash and had kept the ticket safely in the locker while he was waiting for a bus at the Depot for going home, the driver had pursuaded the police and got him arrested.

(3.) The respondents had initiated disciplinary proceedings. In these proceedings, a report dated 16th September, 1985 was given. The enquiry officer noticed that Shri Sliak Ram, traffic supervisor had stated that the driver Batch No.9310 had come to the depot and parked the bus in improper manner. This driver was in a state of intoxication and used unparliamentary language and threatened the officials with dire consequences. The witness gave the name of the driver as Shri Jai Pal, The matter was reported to police post, Bawana and the driver Shri Jai Pal as well as the conductor Shri Ramphal (present respondent) were taken to the police post Bawana. They were medically examined at the Hindu Rao Hospital. A case was also registered against them under 'Sections 92, 93 & 97 of the Delhi Police Act. This witness, Shri Silak Ram, clarified that Shri Ramphal, conductor had neither abused him nor threatened him of dire consequences and that all this was done by the driver. The witness confirmed that the conductor had deposited his cash and tickets back properly with the depot authority. This statement of Shri Silak Ram was corroborated by the evidenqe of Shri Chandgi Ram, another driver of the DTC, who was present at the spot on 13th August, 1985 as well as Shri Jai Dev, a security guard. Other witness, Shri Mohinder Singh, a security hawaldar also corroborated the statement and clearly stated that the conductor did not abuse anybody and was not even present when the driver was misbehaving. In these circumstances, it was held by the enquiry officer that he agreed with the plea given by the present respondent that he neither used unparliamentary language nor threatened anybody and consequently held that the second charge against the respondent/workman was not established. However, on a construction of the reply given by the respondent to the charge-sheet that on completion of his duty he was offered campa cola by the driver and that the driver may have mixed wine with it, the enquiry officer held that the same amounted to admission and consequently held the first charge as established. The enquiry officer also held that the fact that the respondent was medically examined by the police and that a case under Sections 92, 93 & 97 of the Delhi Police Act was registered against the respondent- conductor also established his involvement and proposed his removal from service of the corporation. After issuance of a show cause notice and receipt of reply from the respondent workman, vide an order dated 8th October, 1995, the Depot Manger imposed the punishment of removal from the services of the corporation w.e.f. 8th October, 1985 upon the respondents.