SUMER SINGH Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule.

(2.) With the consent of the counsel for the parties these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

(3.) These are four writ petitions filed by four Delhi Transport Corporation (in short 'DTC') conductors who were appointed as Assistant Store Keepers (in short 'ASKs') with DTC and were subsequently reverted to the posts of Conductor. The respondent corporation by its circular dated 28.2.2005 invited applications from Conductors for the posts of ASKs. One of the eligibility conditions for the post was two years experience of store keeping. These appointments, it was made clear in the advertisement, were to be treated as fresh appointments except that for the purpose of pension the past service was to be counted. After receiving applications and conducting interviews the respondent released a list of selected candidates vide a circular dated 6.6.2005. 61 selected candidates were issued letters of appointment and were redesignated as ASKs with effect from 7.6.2005. The four petitioners were included in the list of 61 selected candidates and they also joined the posts of ASK. In the third week of September, 2005 the respondent issued letters canceling the orders of appointment for these newly appointed ASKs. These orders of cancellation of appointments of the ASKs were challenged in writ petitions bearing numbers WP(C) Nos.19076-80/05 which were disposed of vide a judgment of this court dated 30.11.2005. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in those writ petitions it was disclosed that after the appointment letters were issued the DTC Employees Congress complained to the Chairman and Managing Director of DTC that the appointees did not have the requisite experience of stores and had never worked in that capacity and that the Depot Managers of the respondent had wrongly certified the working experience of such Conductors. The investigation that followed found that 10 conductors appointed as ASKs had given experience certificate from private orgnizations for the periods which overlapped with their period of study which led to a suspicion. Thereafter a Committee of three officers was constituted for the purpose on 22.7.2005. The Committee scrutinized the certificates and furnished its report on 28.7.2005 and thereafter submitted a case study report on 13.9.2005. The Committee pointed out instances where the certifying agencies, namely, the previous employers of Conductors had in certain cases endorsed the certificates but mentioned that the certificates had been issued recently at the asking of the concerned candidate although the certificates were made to look as if they were issued earlier. On the basis of such material the respondent decided to withdraw or cancel the appointments. It was also disclosed that in 19 instances physical verification yielded that in four cases the certificates were false, in two cases the information was genuine and in other cases proper verification could not be carried out since the firm or concern no longer existed. Accordingly on 22.9.2005 the respondent issued the order reverting all the 61 ASKs appointed vide orders dated 6.6.2005 and all the ASKs were directed to report for further duties as Conductors. That batch of writ petitions was decided by this court vide judgment dated 30.11.2005 whereby the order of cancellation of appointments of ASKs was set aside and it was held that the ASKs would continue with full benefits as if the order of reversion had not been issued. The order dated 30.11.2005, however, left the respondent with liberty to initiate such proceedings as it may deem appropriate including departmental proceedings to enquire into the allegations against the petitioners. Following this order the respondent issued order dated 9.1.2006 deploying all the 61 Conductors as ASKs with a rider that their deployment would be subject to final outcome of the investigations and action taken thereafter. The respondent thereafter proceeded to issue notice to each individual employee affected by above proceedings to show cause as to why their appointment as ASKs should not be cancelled. The concerned ASKs then submitted their replies and thereafter the impugned order of cancellation of appointment/ reversion to the original posts of Conductor was passed. The individual cases can now be examined.