DTC Vs. MAHABIR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is a case where the unscrupulous litigant has by its intentional act of suppression has not only succeeded in playing fraud upon the Tribunal, but has also succeeded in obtaining an order in his favour from this court and has also reaped the fruit of that fraud.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case are that the respondent was working as a driver with the petitioner. On 19.11.1984, the respondent had committed the misconduct alongwith co -accused Sh.Ishwar Singh, ASK while driving bus no. DHR 3064. The charge sheet was issued to him on 28.12.1984. The departmental enquiry was conducted in which he had fully participated. Statement of witnesses recorded. Opportunity to cross -examine witnesses was given. The opportunity to produce defence evidence was also given. Meanwhile, the employees went on strike in the year 1988, hence action on enquiry was stalled. The show -cause notice dated 11.06.1992 was also given to him. Instead of filing reply to show -cause notice, workman sent letter dated 17.06.1992, which was duly replied by petitioner vide letter dated 29.06.1992 and respondent/workman was again asked to furnish his reply to show -cause notice. Reminder dated 2.07.1992 and 04.07.1992 were sent. Respondent/workman sent letter dated 14.07.1992, which was not found satisfactory and vide order dated 16.09.1992, the service of workman was terminated.

(3.) ON 25.11.1997, the preliminary issue was framed by the Tribunal relating to the validity of the domestic enquiry. Vide order dated 17th February, 2000, the Tribunal set aside the enquiry. Vide another order of the same date, the approval petition under Section 32(2)(b) of the I.D Act was dismissed.