RAMESH KUMAR Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition the petitioner, a DTC driver of bus No.15936, has sought to challenge the show cause notice dated 3.10.1994 whereby the petitioner was put to show cause as to why he be not punished with the order of dismissal from service pursuant to the chargesheet dated 25.3.1994 issued against him. During the course of pendency of the present writ petition, the inquiry against the petitioner was completed and the services of the petitioner were terminated. After the said order of dismissal, the petitioner amended this petition and also challenged his dismissal. The facts in brief which are relevant for deciding the present writ petition are that the petitioner at the relevant time was operating the bus from Delhi to Tanakpur and on the relevant date of 10.3.1994 while he was coming back from Tanakpur to Delhi, the said bus was apprehended near Banwasa Police Post by the customs officials. On checking the bus, the customs officials found that, in the tool box which was kept under the last seat of the bus, certain smuggled computer parts were found, which according to the customs officials were worth Rs.70,000/-. The petitioner, Shri Rajinder Singh, conductor of the bus and one Mr.Ravindra Singh, a commuter in the bus, were arrested on the spot and the bus was also taken in custody by the customs officials which was detained by them for a period of 14 days. The petitioner was released on bail but in the meantime he was placed under suspension with effect from 16.3.1994. The petitioner was chargesheeted vide chargesheet No. S.162/94/364 dated 25.3.1994. The chargesheet as framed against the petitioner is reproduced as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_791_ILRDLH16_2007Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) After issuance of the said chargesheet, the petitioner vide his letter dated 31.3.1994, made a request to the respondents to supply the names of all the persons who checked the bus, copy of the statements of the persons and the copy of the FIR so as to enable him to reply to the said chargesheet dated 25.3.1994. In reply to this letter of the petitioner, the respondent vide their reply dated 15.4.1994 did not supply the said documents and the information as sought by the petitioner on the ground that the same were not available. The petitioner sent various reminders dated 16.5.1994, 23.5.1994, 17.6.1994, 20.6.1994 and 16.8.1994 to the respondent for supplying the said documents and information, otherwise, to stop the inquiry proceedings. That despite the aforesaid letters, an Enquiry Committee was culminated and the enquiry proceedings commenced with effect from 10.6.1994 and completed on 26.9.1994. The petitioner also made request vide aforesaid letters stating that no inquiry should be held before the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. The petitioner's request was not paid any heed. The petitioner had attended the inquiry on 10.6.1994 on which date again, he reiterated his request for supplying the documents and thereafter, the inquiry proceedings continued on various dates without any due intimation to the petitioner. The inquiry proceedings were held on 24.7.1994, 4.8.1994, 16.8.1994 and 26.9.1994 and thereafter show cause notice dated 3.10.1994, proposing dismissal of the petitioner from the service was issued. The petitioner sent a reply to the said show cause notice vide letter dated 17.10.1994 but without considering the reply of the petitioner, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent. In the meantime vide letter dated 30.12.1994, the Collector of Customs gave a finding that the involvement of the petitioner and the other members of the staff of the bus were not proved and thus the petitioner was discharged from the criminal charge. The petitioner has thus challenged the said show cause notice, chargesheet as well as dismissal on the ground that there is a serious violation of principles of natural justice as right from the beginning he had been seeking the said information so as to know the names of all the persons who were present and checked the bus as well as the statement of witnesses including a copy of the FIR but deliberately the respondents for no reason, whatsoever, did not supply the documents as well as the said information. The petitioner stated that in the absence of this vital information, he was not in a position to file his comprehensive reply to the show cause notice dated 3.10.1994. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the charges as framed by the customs officials as well as by the Inquiry Officer are the same and the inquiry proceedings should not have continued before the conclusion of the criminal case as any reply, if submitted by him would have prejudiced his defence in the criminal case. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that since he has already been acquitted from the criminal case, therefore, the same proved his innocence but for the same charges the department has held him guilty.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has contended that vide letter dated 31.3.1994, petitioner had specifically asked for supply of names of all the persons who checked the bus, copies of statement of the persons and copy of the FIR so as to enable him to give reply to the chargesheet but in reply thereto the respondent in utter violation of principles of natural justice refused to supply the information on the pretext of the same not being available with the respondent. The respondent in its reply dated 15.4.94 had stated that name of the persons who checked the bus and their statements, copy of the FIR as well as statement of witnesses were not available with them. Respondent had merely supplied copy of the statement of the officer of the U.P. Roadways and copy of the order No. 101 of the year 1954. The petitioner vide another letter dated 16.5.94 again insisted for making those documents available as in the absence of the said documents he would not be able to give proper reply to the show cause notice issued by the respondent. Again the petitioner sent a letter dated 23.5.94 to the respondent for supply of copy of the FIR registered by the Customs Department along with list of witnesses and their names etc. The petitioner vide letters dated 17.6.94, 20.6.94 and 16.8.94 also made a request to the respondent for not proceeding with the enquiry till the documents as asked for, by him, were supplied to him. Based on the above letters and reminders sent by the petitioner, counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent proceeded with the enquiry without paying any heed to the said request of the petitioner and vide order dated 20.10.94 passed termination order in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and basic tenets of the law. The petitioner had also pleaded with the respondent not to proceed with the enquiry during the continuation of criminal proceedings as disclosure of defense by the petitioner would cause serious prejudice to his case in the enquiry proceedings.