KAILASH CHAND Vs. DTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On October 16, 1984 the appellant was appointed as a Conductor with the respondent and was to be on probation for a period of one year. Deployed as a Conductor with a bus plying on Route No.402 between Jama Masjid and Okhla, the checking staff claims to have detected on February 29, 1985 that a passenger had been sold a used ticket by the appellant and he was in possession of another used ticket. Empowered under Regulation 9(a)(I) of the DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952, since the appellant was still under probation his services were terminated on August 23, 1985 by an order which is exfacie non stigmatic inasmuch as it does not contain the reason for the services of the appellant to be terminated.

(2.) It is an admitted case of the parties that no inquiry whatsoever was held.

(3.) Seeking a reference for the dispute concerning his services being terminated to be referred to an Industrial Tribunal, and on a reference being made, vide award dated January 11, 1999, the Industrial Tribunal opined that since the termination was founded on an alleged misdemeanour, it was penal in nature. The order of termination was set aside and a direction was issued that the appellant be reinstated in service with full back wages.