RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE service of the applicant, who was a Driver in Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), was terminated vide order dated 2.02.2011 under clause 9(a)(I) of the DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952. The relevant portion of clause 9(a)(I) reads as under:

(2.) THE applicant was appointed and joined as Driver in DTC on 4.02.2009. His services were terminated during his probation period by a simpliciter order, as stated above. Being aggrieved by this action of the respondents, the present OA has been filed with a prayer to quash the orders dated 2.02.2011, 26.04.2012 and 6.06.2012, the last being the rejection of his appeal dated 3.05.2012 to reinstate him in service.

(3.) IN support of his case, the applicant also cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.P. Ahuja Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1965/2000. The facts of that case, in brief, are that the appellant was appointed as Chief Executive in the establishment of Punjab Cooperative Cotton Marketing & Spinning Mills Federation Limited and his services had been terminated without any notice. The terms and conditions of the appellant's appointment stated that he would be on probation for two years and that during the probation period, the management had a right to terminate his services without notice. The termination order was challenged in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana but the Writ was dismissed. The Hon ble Supreme Court held that the order of termination was stigmatic as also punitive. The order of termination in that case stated However, he failed in the performance of his duties administratively & technically... In this respect, para 8 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is relevant and is quoted below: