BACHAN DASS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India had arisen on these facts,

(2.) The petitioner is a conductor employed in Delhi Transport Corporation On 15th Feb., 1974 vide letter No. ND/CR/1-43/74/100 the petitioner was charge sheeted for non-issue of a ticket to a passenger after having realised the fare and thus having misappropriated the amount by non issuing any ticket. The petitioner was required to explain as to why disciplinary action under Clause 15(2) of D. R T. A. (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 read with Delhi Road Transport Laws (Amendment) Act, 1971 should not be taken against him for the aforesaid misconduct The disciplinary enquiry was initiated under the orders of Assistant General Manager (T) who entrusted the enquiry to E.O (Norths The enquiry was held by E. O. (North) who was Traffic Superintendent The findings of the Enquiry Officer were submitted to the General Manager who after careful consideration of the report of the Enquiry Officer provisionally expressed the opinion that the petitioner should be removed from the services of the Corporation. The second show-cause notice dated 28th Oct., 1974 was issued by the General Manager. It is at that stage that the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The main question raised in the writ petition and urged by Mr. D.N. Vohra, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer has been appointed by the Assistant General Manager (T) Vigilance who is not competent to do so as he has no power to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner. In a batch of Letters Patent Appeals a similar question raised by the writ petitioners there was that the disciplinary proceedings against them had been ordered or commenced by persons/officers not authorised and even the enquiry had been conducted by the Enquiry Officer who had no authority to act as such, inasmuch as the Enquiry Officer was appointed by an authority/Officer not competent to appoint the Enquiry Officer. A learned Single Judge of this Court upheld the contentions of the petitioners In the L.P.A. the findings of the learned Single Judge were reversed The judgment of the Division Bench was announced on Sept. 30, 1977 in L.P.A. No. 6 of 1976, Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Surinder Kumar