RAJ PAL Vs. DTC AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 29.05.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1727/2013, whereby the Tribunal has rejected the prayer of the Petitioner for reinstatement on termination of his services w.e.f. 26.11.2010 under Clause 9 (a) (i) of the DRTA (Condition of Appointment and Service) Regulation, 1952 also by which the Respondents rejected the representation of the Petitioner by order dated 14.01.2013 and also charge sheet dated 25.06.2010.

(2.) To appreciate the controversy at hand, it would be necessary to give a brief gist of the facts.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Petitioner had not disclosed the criminal case pending against him in the belief that once the Petitioner had entered into a compromise with his wife who was the complainant in that case and divorce had also been effected, it would not be construed to be a case pending against him. Further, the Respondents issued a show cause notice on the charge of concealment of information and after considering his reply ordered a detailed enquiry on 15.11.2010. The enquiry officer had fixed the first date of hearing on 6.12.2010 at 11 hours. Without waiting for the enquiry to be completed the Respondents issued the order of his termination on 26.11.2010 under Clause 9 (a) (i) of DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1992 which deals with the power to terminate the service during probation. Considering that a departmental inquiry had already started against the applicant, it was clear that the motive behind the termination was the allegation contained in the charge sheet and not the unsatisfactory completion of probation