JAIPAL SINGH Vs. CHAIRMAN D T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, named above, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, assailing Order dated the 16th June, 1995, passed by the Depot Manager, Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), removing the petitioner from the service of the Corporation and the subsequent orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation rejecting the appeals preferred by the petitioner against the abovesaid order of his removal from service.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Fitter in the Corporation vide order dated 17th July, 1985 and was posted as such in the Central Workshop II, Okhia, Phase-1, New Delhi. On 11th August, 1994 the petitioner was given two F.I. Pumps for overhauling/repairs. The petitioner repaired one F.I. Pump but refused to overhaul/repair the other FI pump. For the above default on the part of the petitioner it was decided to initiate departmental action against him. He was also placed under suspension w.e.f. 11th August, 1994. Shri H.R. Singh, Senior Manager, Incharge Central Workshop-11, DTC lodged a report with the Station House Officer, Police Station Sriniwaspuri staling therein that the petitioner who was placed under suspension on 11th August, 1994, at about 1.00 p.m rang up at his residence and threatened his wife with dire consequences and also threatened to kidnap to his children. On the basis of the above complaint of said Shri H.R. Singh, proceedings under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were initiated against the petitioner. However, the petitioner in the abovesaid proceedings, was discharged by the Special Executive Magistrate vide order dated 28th February, 1995.

(3.) Notice of the petition was given to the respondents who have filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents, all the allegations made by the petitioner against the Senior Manager have been denied and it is contended that for the default on the part of the petitioner, a regular departmental inquiry was initiated against him and after the conclusion of the inquiry the petitioner was removed from the service of the Corporation and the appeals filed by the petitioner were rejected by the concerned Competent Authorities after following the due process of law. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the present petition, filed by the petitioner, is wholly unwarranted misplaced and deserves to be dismissed.