MILAP CHAND GROVER Vs. D T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner in these proceedings questions an order (corrigendum) dated 6.8.2003 by which the respondent (hereafter called "the DTC") determined that he was dis-entitled back wages for the period 8.3.1996 to 6.8.2003.

(2.) The admitted facts of this case are that the petitioner was originally removed by a punitive order dated 5.10.1992. The order was preceded by a departmental inquiry. The Enquiry Officer had exonerated the petitioner of the charges but the departmental authority issued the order of removal without even awaiting the petitioner's response to its show cause notice. The order was, therefore, set aside by this Court on 6.2.1995. The petitioner was consequently reinstated. This Court had granted liberty to the respondent to pass a fresh order in the departmental proceedings.

(3.) The DTC passed its second order on 8.3.1996, again removing the petitioner. This time the DTC did not follow the proper procedure, in that the dis- agreement/show cause notice on the basis of which the competent authority differed with the Inquiry Officer was not disclosed to the petitioner. He was also denied the opportunity of answering to tentative contrary findings. This removal order dated 8.3.1996 was challenged in writ petition No. 305/1997. The Court set aside the order of removal dated 8.3.1996 on 23.4.2002. The Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and Ors. vs. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 2713 and Yoginath D. Badge vs. State of