SULTAN SINGH Vs. DTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant case raises a question as to whether an employer can be permitted to contend that it can be permitted to prove a case entirely different from the charge against the workman and still it urged that the workman was guilty of the case which was proved and not of the case with which he was charged. As a corollary, the question which has arisen as to whether the workman would be precluded from raising an objection to this effect in a writ petition filed by him impugning such action of his employer and the award of the industrial adjudicator on such plea, if he had not specifically raised the same in any proceedings prior thereto.

(2.) The petitioner in the instant case was employed as a driver with the DTC with effect from 1st August. 1975. On 26th October, 1983 he was on duty with bus No. DLP 1230 on the Delhi-Shim la route. Allegations were levelled against the petitioner to the effect that when the checking officials gave a signal and blew the whistle to the petitioner to stop the bus for checking at Dhalli, he did not care to stop the bus but sped away. In this behalf, a charge sheet dated 18th November, 1983 was issued to the petitioner, the relevant portion whereof reads thus: CHARGE SHEET You are required to explain as to why disciplinary action under Clause 15(2) of the D.R.T.A. (Condition of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952 read with Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and Delhi Transport Law (Amendment) Act. 1971, should not be taken against you for the following irregularities:

(3.) On the basis of this charge sheet, an inquiry was held. There is no dispute that in this inquiry, there was no evidence brought on record against the petitioner to the effect that he did not stop the bus at Dhalli. On the contrary, it was stated in the evidence on behalf of the DTC that the bus did not stop at Kanda Ghat but stopped at Dhalli. However, the inquiry officer submitted a report dated 26th June, 1984 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges with which he had been charged. In these circumstances, the depot manager imposed a punishment on the petitioner of this stoppage of his next increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal dated 24th July, 1984 under the rules to the Competent Authority which was rejected by an order passed on 19th September, 1984. The second appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected on 25th February, 1985.