Full Text
Translation output
h $-15 & 16 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 761/2014 & CM APPL. No. 1527/2014
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Petitioner
Through Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate
W.P.(C) 761/2014 & CM APPL. No. 1527/2014
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Petitioner
Through Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate
VERSUS
BRAHAMJEET Respondent
Through Mr. Shankar Raju & Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advocates
Through Mr. Shankar Raju & Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advocates
W.P.(C) 1733/2014 & CM APPL. No. 3634/2014
BRAHMJEET ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Shankar Raju & Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advocates
BRAHMJEET ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Shankar Raju & Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advocates
VERSUS
:
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
15.04.2015 These matters are listed today, as 14* April; 2015 was declared as holiday.
Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, the learned counsel for the petitioner- DTC submits that the case of the respondent- Brahamjeet is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Suresh Chand & Am. v. DTC and
2015:DHC:11821-DB other connected Writ Petitions wherein the Division Bench has given a direction to the DTC to initiate and continue with the enquiry into the charges alleged against the petitioners therein in the show cause notice after receivrng4^ir explanation and thereafter proceed in accordance with law, having regard to the final re]^rt^ceived from the Enquiry Officer. The
Court also directed that it shall not be open to the DTC to teitninate or, dismiss the petitioners therein on the basis ofthe alleged fraud, merely by giving a show cause notice and calling for areply.
Mr. Shankar Raju, the learned counsel for therespondent, ontheother hand, submits that the respondent was never terminated from service but at the same time he was not allowed tojoin his duty on the post of driver and was also not given any other duties looking into his medical condition. The learned counsel also submits that vide order dated 2"'' May, 2014 this Court also directed that the services of the respondent shall not be terminated by thepetitioner- DTC till thenextdate of hearing with further direction to the petitioner -DTC to assign duties^to^&enfg^sponden^ther than those involving driving ofthe vehicle but despite the said direction given by this
(•
Court, the petitioner- DTC failed to assign any duties other than those involving driving of vehicle. The learned counsel thus submits that in the absence of any salary or subsistence allowance, the respondent is on the verge of starvation and therefore, at least a direction be given to the petitioner- DTC to pay his subsistence allowance at least from the date of show cause notice dated 20.09.2013 servedupon him.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The impugned order dated 08.10.2013 passed by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Tribunal') is under challenge by the petitioner- DTC as well as by the employee respondent - Brahamjeet in these two Writ
Petitions.
The case of the respondent- Brahamjeet indisputably is that his medical unfitness is due to low vision and for that the petitioner- DTC has already served notice on the respondent and reply thereto has already been filed by the respondent but till date the petitioner- DTC has not commenced any inquiry proceeding and at the same time the respondent has not been allowed to join back his duties as the petitioner- DTC has not assigned any duties other than that involving the driving of vehicle in terms of the order dated 02.05.2015 passed by this Court. Certainly, in the absence of any termination order passed by the petitioner- DTC, the respondent cannot be r
V
¥ deprived ofhis salary that too where even a suspension order has not been passed by the petitioner- DTC yet.
Considering the fact that the petitioner- DTC has already issued a show cause notice on the respondent and a reply has been received from the respondent, therefore, onthe said date, the respondent shall bedeemed to be under suspension and from this date itself the respondent will be entitled to subsistence allowance in terms ofthe applicable rules. The petitioner - DTC has not yet taken any steps to start the inquiry proceeding against the respondent based on the said notice, therefore, we direct the petitioner- DTC to immediately start the inquiry proceedings against the respondent and to complete the saidproceedings within a period of sixmonths from the date of this order. Pending disposal of the inquiry proceedings against the respondent, he shall be entitled to the subsistence allowance in terms ofthe applicable rules and the entire arrears of the subsistence allowance effective from 20.09.2013 shall be released by the petitioner- DTC within a period of one month from the date of this order and further subsistence allowance shall bepaid bythepetitioner- DTC totherespondent month bymonth.
With regard to the period prior to the show cause notice, the respondent is permitted to file a separate representation to the petitioner-
DTC and the decisionthereon shall be taken by the petitioner- DTC within a period oftwomonths from the date ofsubmission oftherepresentation.
With the above observations, the present Writ Petitions are disposed of
KAILASH GAMBfflR, J.
APRIL 15, 2015 V ^
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
15.04.2015 These matters are listed today, as 14* April; 2015 was declared as holiday.
Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, the learned counsel for the petitioner- DTC submits that the case of the respondent- Brahamjeet is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Suresh Chand & Am. v. DTC and
2015:DHC:11821-DB other connected Writ Petitions wherein the Division Bench has given a direction to the DTC to initiate and continue with the enquiry into the charges alleged against the petitioners therein in the show cause notice after receivrng4^ir explanation and thereafter proceed in accordance with law, having regard to the final re]^rt^ceived from the Enquiry Officer. The
Court also directed that it shall not be open to the DTC to teitninate or, dismiss the petitioners therein on the basis ofthe alleged fraud, merely by giving a show cause notice and calling for areply.
Mr. Shankar Raju, the learned counsel for therespondent, ontheother hand, submits that the respondent was never terminated from service but at the same time he was not allowed tojoin his duty on the post of driver and was also not given any other duties looking into his medical condition. The learned counsel also submits that vide order dated 2"'' May, 2014 this Court also directed that the services of the respondent shall not be terminated by thepetitioner- DTC till thenextdate of hearing with further direction to the petitioner -DTC to assign duties^to^&enfg^sponden^ther than those involving driving ofthe vehicle but despite the said direction given by this
(•
Court, the petitioner- DTC failed to assign any duties other than those involving driving of vehicle. The learned counsel thus submits that in the absence of any salary or subsistence allowance, the respondent is on the verge of starvation and therefore, at least a direction be given to the petitioner- DTC to pay his subsistence allowance at least from the date of show cause notice dated 20.09.2013 servedupon him.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The impugned order dated 08.10.2013 passed by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Tribunal') is under challenge by the petitioner- DTC as well as by the employee respondent - Brahamjeet in these two Writ
Petitions.
The case of the respondent- Brahamjeet indisputably is that his medical unfitness is due to low vision and for that the petitioner- DTC has already served notice on the respondent and reply thereto has already been filed by the respondent but till date the petitioner- DTC has not commenced any inquiry proceeding and at the same time the respondent has not been allowed to join back his duties as the petitioner- DTC has not assigned any duties other than that involving the driving of vehicle in terms of the order dated 02.05.2015 passed by this Court. Certainly, in the absence of any termination order passed by the petitioner- DTC, the respondent cannot be r
V
¥ deprived ofhis salary that too where even a suspension order has not been passed by the petitioner- DTC yet.
Considering the fact that the petitioner- DTC has already issued a show cause notice on the respondent and a reply has been received from the respondent, therefore, onthe said date, the respondent shall bedeemed to be under suspension and from this date itself the respondent will be entitled to subsistence allowance in terms ofthe applicable rules. The petitioner - DTC has not yet taken any steps to start the inquiry proceeding against the respondent based on the said notice, therefore, we direct the petitioner- DTC to immediately start the inquiry proceedings against the respondent and to complete the saidproceedings within a period of sixmonths from the date of this order. Pending disposal of the inquiry proceedings against the respondent, he shall be entitled to the subsistence allowance in terms ofthe applicable rules and the entire arrears of the subsistence allowance effective from 20.09.2013 shall be released by the petitioner- DTC within a period of one month from the date of this order and further subsistence allowance shall bepaid bythepetitioner- DTC totherespondent month bymonth.
With regard to the period prior to the show cause notice, the respondent is permitted to file a separate representation to the petitioner-
DTC and the decisionthereon shall be taken by the petitioner- DTC within a period oftwomonths from the date ofsubmission oftherepresentation.
With the above observations, the present Writ Petitions are disposed of
KAILASH GAMBfflR, J.
APRIL 15, 2015 V ^
JUDGMENT