Full Text
Date ofDecision: March 19, 20IS
SANDEEP KUMAR Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Arun Dhiman, Advocate.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner was appointed on probation as a driver with DTC on February 4, 2009. After 5 days, on February 9, 2009, the bus which he was driving was involved in an accident with a motor-cycle resulting in death of the motor-cycle driver. Petitioner became an accused for having committed offence punishable under Section 279/337/304A IPG.
2. For a continuous stretch of 137 days, commencing from February 9, 2009 till August 30, 2009, he did not report for duty. He just sat home. We highlight, he was not sent to judicial custody even for a day after he was arrested for the reason he was admitted to bail immediately.
3. On June 30, 2009, the State Transport Authority suspended the Heavy Motor Vehicle license held by the petitioner.
4. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that we need to consider whether decision taken not to confirm services of the petitioner and discharge him W.P.(C) No.948/2013 2013:DHC:7670-DB while still on probation is justified. We note that vide order dated June 28, 2011, services of petitioner have been terminated in exercise of power under Clause 9(a) (i) of the D.R.T.A. (Condition of Appointment & Service) Regulation, 1952.
5. One more fact needs to be noted. On July 15, 2009, the petitioner obtained a Light Motor Vehicle driving license.
6. The Tribunal has justified petitioner's being terminated as per the impugned order dated April 20, 2012. 7.. Now, in the absence of a Heavy Motor Vehicle license, the petitioner cannot drive a DTC bus. The plea that he could be permitted to drive light vehicles, such as cars for senior officers of DTC, urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is useless for the reason DTC does not require a driver to drive cars. It needs drivers to drive DTC buses.
8. It is settled law that whether or not to confirm the services of the probationer is the decision of the employer. Judicial interference is limited to ensure that there is fairness in the decision taken.
9. As noted above, after working for 5 days, when the bus being driven by the petitioner was involved in an accident, he did not report for duty for 137 days. This is not the conduct of a willing worker. If this is the propensity while on probation, the view taken by the employer that the employee is a shirker is justified. That apart, after he reported for duties after being absent for 137 days, record produced would show that light duties here and there, whatever could be performed by the petitioner, were assigned to him and in respect thereof the quarterly appraisal reports would show that the petitioner is an average worker.
10. Pertaining to said appraisal, there may be merit in the plea urged by counsel for the petitioner, that not made to drive DTC buses, on being made W.P.(C)No.948/2013 to perform all and sundry works, what efficiency could be evidenced by the petitioner?
11. But, in said situation, the petitioner must go for the reason he does not possess a Heavy Motor Vehicle license and being a probationer driver is not being in a position to drive DTC buses.
12. Looked at from any angle, the writ petition is dismissed, but with an obsei-vation. Ifthe petitioner can obtain a Heavy Motor Vehicle license, and seeks re-employment, petitioner's application would be considered by DTC taking note of the fact that a Committee constituted by DTC has formed an opinion that driver of the motorcycle was at fault when the accident took place in which the driver ofthe motorcycle lost his life.
13. No costs.
MARCH 19, 2013 'SS' TT PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. />-<P // //3,