CHANDER SINGH Vs. GENERAL MANAGER DTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 9th February and 19th July, 1996 passed by the respondent, removing the petitioner from service and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Driver with full back wages.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed with the respondent as a Driver. It is claimed by him that on 16th September, 1995 due to certain emergency, he left for his village in District Rohtak in Haryana and could send his application for leave through UPC only on 17th September, 1995. He joined back in service on 3rd November, 1995. The respondent served the petitioner with a charge sheet dated 6th November, 1995 calling upon him to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for remaining absent from duty unauthorizedly from 17th September to 2nd November, 1995, without prior permission. The petitioner filed a reply to the notice to show cause. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was held. The petitioner appeared in the enquiry proceedings and participated therein. Pursuant to the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority, vide orders dated 9th February, 1996, imposed a major punishment on the petitioner whereby he was removed from the service of the respondent with immediate effect. As against the aforesaid order of removal from service, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Chairman of the respondent, which was rejected vide order dated 19th July, 1996. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders were required to be passed under the Standing Orders in terms of Section 10(1) (d) read with Schedule 2 and 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') and not under the D.R.T.A.(Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations 1952, as was done by the respondent. He argued that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against him and that the quantum of punishment was not commensurate with the guilt of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the entire enquiry proceedings were vitiated by mala fides because the enquiry proceedings were being influenced by the Depot Manager who was the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner and against whom the petitioner was to depose as a witness in certain pending cases. He contended that despite an affidavit filed by the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings specifically stating inter alia that the petitioner was threatened by the Depot Manager with dire consequences, the impugned order of removal from service was passed against the petitioner, which is therefore arbitrary and smacks of mala fides.