Sushil Kumar vs Delhi Transport Corporation

Nita Chowdhury, J

By filing this OA the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) Pass an order to set aside the orders dated 31.07.2012 & 10.09.2014.

(ii) Consequent to (i) above, direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits, if any.

(iii) To award costs in favour of the applicant and

(iv) To pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interests of justice."

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as a Conductor on contract basis in the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) w.e.f. 14.1.2010 and his short term contract was renewed subsequently. However, while he was working as such, the respondents have issued a show cause notice dated 29.11.2011 on the allegation that on 16. 11.2011, the bus in which the applicant was performing duty as a Conductor met with an accident and in the said accident, the said bus hit a motorcycle and injured two riders. One of those succumbed to his injuries and died on 23. 11.2011. The Police registered a case under Section 279/337/304A of IPC. The applicant did not inform the respondent Corporation of the said accident and in such a way he has concealed the fact to help the Driver of the said Bus. The applicant was directed to give his explanation within 72 hours. The applicant gave his reply on 9.12.2011 and the said reply was thoroughly perused by the disciplinary authority but was not found satisfactory by the disciplinary authority and thus his contract was terminated vide letter dated 13.12.2011.

1 Thereafter applicant filed a representation to the Regional Manager on 20.12.2011 and the said representation was allowed and the applicant was directed to report for further duties and making new agreement of contractual contract. The applicant thereafter entered into fresh contract of service for the period from 01.02.2012 to 29.4.2012 and thereafter from 2.5.2012 to 1.5.2013.

2.1 A circular dated 4.7.2012 was introduced in DTC, whereby and whereunder several matters pertaining to services of contractual drivers and conductors involved in cheating case, i.e., bogus trips, sale of duplicate/re-sale of tickets, fatal accidents etc. and who were still on the roll of the Corporation were taken up by the Vigilance Department of the respondent Corporation. The applicant's case was also one amongst ten such cases. Therefore, as per the said circular dated 4.7.2012, the services of the applicant were directed to be terminated forthwith and the same was conveyed to the concerned Depot Manager for strict compliance. Accordingly, the contractual services of the applicant were terminated by the respondent Corporation vide letter dated 31.7.2012. The applicant filed an appeal to the CMD of the Respondent Corporation on 2.1.2014, which was dismissed vide order dated 10.9.2014.

2.2 Being aggrieved by the orders dated 21.7.2012 and 10.9.2014, the applicant has filed this OA seeking the reliefs as quoted above.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that once the respondent Corporation has accepted the appeal of the applicant against the initial termination order, there was no ground for the respondents to take a volte face and again terminate the service contract of the applicant on the same set of facts and circumstances which were existing earlier. He also submitted that the impugned order dated 31.7.2012 is also violative of principles of natural justice since after allowing the applicant to rejoin duties, the service of the applicant on the same set of facts and circumstances could not have been terminated again without giving a show cause notice prior thereto.

3.1 Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the action was taken by the respondents in pursuance of advice of the Vigilance Department but the copy of the same has not been supplied to the applicant, which amount to violation of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of UOI vs. S.K. Kapoor, 2011 (4) SCC 589.

3.2 Counsel also submitted that impugned orders are also non-speaking in nature as the same do not disclose any reason as to why the case of the applicant was re-opened and sent to the vigilance department. In support of his contention, counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Shri Lekha Vidyarthi etc. vs. State of U.P. & Others, AIR 1991 SC 537.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that respondent Corporation has issued order dated 31.7.2012 to the applicant in view of the fact that his case was referred by the Vigilance Department to the Chairman of DTC, and vide letter dated 4.7.2012, his service contract was again terminated and therefore, his service contract was terminated with effect from 31.7.2012.

4.1 Counsel for the applicant further submitted that as per the provisions of the DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Services) Regulations, 1952, the time limit for preferring an appeal is one month and admittedly the applicant has preferred his appeal only on 2.1.2014 against the said order dated 31.7.2012 and the appellate authority has despite the delayed appeal considered the same thoroughly but not found the same satisfactory and the same has been rejected vide order dated 10.9.2014. Counsel also submitted that last service contract, which was for the period from 2.5.2012 to 1.5.2013, was terminated vide order dated 31.7.2012 in view of the fact that Vigilance Department vide order dated 4.7.2012 found that the applicant was involved in a fatal accident. As such there is no illegality in the action of the respondent Corporation.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that vide order dated 4.7.2012, the respondent Corporation has not only taken action only against the applicant but also other nine such persons who were involved in cheating cases, i.e., bogus trips, sale of duplicate/resale of tickets, fatal accidents etc. and who are still on the rolls of the Corporation. It is admitted fact that the applicant was also involved in a fatal accident case in which one person succumbed to injuries. In pursuance of Office Memo dated 31.1.2012, the concerned authorities furnished the details of all those contractual crew (Drivers/Conductors) involved in cheating case, i.e., bogus trips, sale of duplicate/re-sale of tickets, fatal accidents etc. and who were still on the roll of the Corporation to the Vigilance Department and the Vigilance Department vide order dated 4.7.2012 directed the concerned authorities to terminate the contract services of the persons whose details were mentioned in the said order. The applicant's case came under the fatal accident case as admittedly the applicant's service during the said relevant period was terminated in relation to the act of the applicant and for not reporting the same at the relevant time to the competent authority.

The applicant has not challenged the termination of the said service contract period, which amounts to acceptance of his guilt. As such when the respondent - Corporation has taken a conscious/policy decision to terminate the service contract of such employees who were involved in the aforesaid types of cases, that too not only the applicant but other nine such contractual employees services were also directed to be terminated, we do not find any illegality in the said action of the respondents. It is further relevant to mention that the service contract period in question had expired long back. Even if this Court accepts the contentions of the applicant, the reliefs sought in this OA filed in 2015 cannot be granted at this belated stage, as the said service contract which is in question was from 2.5.2012 to 1.5.2013, which was terminated vide order dated 31.7.2012 with immediate effect and the appeal, which was preferred by the applicant only on 2.1.2014, was rejected on 10.9.2014. This rejection of his appeal will not give him a fresh cause of action as the cause of action for the applicant arose on 31.7.2012 and the instant OA has been filed on 19.8.2015. As such in the above facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. As such the present OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.