SATPAL CONDUCTOR Vs. DTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing his removal order dated 11.12.2000 passed by the Depot Manager of the respondent/DTC by which the penalty of removal from services was imposed on him.

(2.) It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor with the respondent/DTC on regular basis in the year 1978 and he continued to work in the said capacity up to the year 1999. On 16.3.2000, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 10.3.2000, wherein it was mentioned that when the petitioner was on duty on Bus No.DHP- 2753, his bus was checked by the checking staff and it was allegedly found that the petitioner had not issued tickets for the luggage of the passengers after having accepted the fare and that he had taken some amount as bribe from the passengers for keeping the luggage. It was noted in the charge sheet that the petitioner was under influence of alcohol and bags containing spurious liquor were found in his bus. On account of alleged discovery of bags containing spurious liquor, an FIR was registered by the checking staff. Though the petitioner filed a reply to the charge sheet, the same was not found to be satisfactory and as a result, inquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, an inquiry report was placed before the disciplinary authority, who gave an opportunity to the petitioner to file a reply within 10 days. However, nothing was forthcoming from the petitioner. As a result, a final order dated 11.12.2000 came to be passed, by which the petitioner was removed from the service of the respondent/DTC with immediate effect, which order is under challenge in the present petition.

(3.) It is stated in the writ petition that the criminal case pending against the petitioner was heard by the Metropolitan Magistrate, who vide order dated 1.8.2007, acquitted the petitioner of all the criminal charges levelled against him and then the petitioner approached the respondent for reinstatement in service. However, his request was not allowed, compelling the petitioner to initiate the present proceedings.