AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)
The present OA has been preferred by the applicant, who was removed from the post of Conductor by the respondent-DTC vide Orders Dt.
16.11.2018. The applicant herein preferred an appeal which has also been rejected vide orders Dt. 28.6.2019. It is against this removal that the
applicant has preferred the instant OA and challenged the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority.
The applicant pleads that the orders passed by the appellate authority are non-speaking. The applicant also pleads that the charge imposed upon her
was that she has participated in the strike whereas she never participated in any such strike.
Issue notice. Shri Manish Garg, who appears on advance information on behalf of respondent-DTC, accepts notice.
The matter has been heard.
The orders Dt. 28.6.2019 by Appellate Authority reads as under :
“Reference your appeal No. PLD (HQ)-8528 Dated 31.12.2018 requesting therein to re-engagement for the service of this corporation. In this
connection it is to inform that your request has been Rejected to by the competent authority.â€
It is noted that the above order passed by the appellate authority, are non-speaking and accordingly the same order is not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal accordingly quashes the same, with a direction to the appellate authority to re-visit and pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order as
per merits of the case, within a period of eight weeks under advice to the applicant.
The applicant shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal, if certain grievance still subsists. No costs.
Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of.