SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Del) 154

High Court Of Delhi
HARI CHAND - Appellant
Versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Respondent
Civil 4389 of 1994
Decided On : 02/10/1995

Advocates Appeared:
D.K.NAG, D.N.Vohra, J.N.AGARWAL, O.P.Sharma, S.LUTHRA, T.SRIDHARANq

The Depot Manager of the Delhi Transport Corporation was a competent authority to take disciplinary action against employees, as the DTC Board had delegated such powers to him through resolutions passed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Delhi Transport Corporation Act, 1950.

Headnote:

DISCIPLINARY ACTION - DELEGATION OF POWERS - COMPETENT AUTHORITY - DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ACT, 1950 - DELHI ROAD TRANSPORT LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1971 - DRT CONDITIONS AND APPOINTMENTS OF SERVICE REGULATIONS, 1952 - SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE - VALIDITY - JUDICIAL REVIEW - WRIT JURISDICTION - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT - LABOUR COURT - REMEDY FOR WRONGFUL DISMISSAL.

Fact of the Case:

Employees of Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) challenged the validity of show-cause notices issued by the Depot Manager for disciplinary action, claiming that the Depot Manager was not a competent authority and that the notices were illegal and invalid.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Depot Manager was a competent authority to take disciplinary action against the petitioners, as the DTC Board had passed resolutions authorizing certain officers, including Depot Managers, to exercise such powers. The Court also held that the show-cause notices issued by the Depot Manager were valid and legal.

Issues: 1. Whether the Depot Manager was a competent authority to take disciplinary action against the petitioners? 2. Whether the show-cause notices issued by the Depot Manager were valid and legal?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on the provisions of Section 12(1)(c) of the Delhi Transport Corporation Act, 1950, Section 4 of the Delhi Road Transport Laws (Amendment) Act, 1971, and the DRT Conditions and Appointments of Service Regulations, 1952, to hold that the DTC Board had the power to delegate disciplinary powers to the Depot Manager. 2. The Court also relied on the resolutions passed by the DTC Board, which specifically authorized the Depot Manager to take disciplinary action against certain classes of employees.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed all the petitions, holding that the Depot Manager was a competent authority to take disciplinary action and that the show-cause notices issued by him were valid and legal. The Court also observed that the petitioners had an efficacious remedy to approach the Labour Court for improper and wrongful dismissal, if they were ultimately punished as anticipated by them.

S. D. Pandit

( 1 ) ALL these seventeen petitions are raising common questions. All the petitioners in these seventeen petitions are the employees of Delhi Transport Corporation. Out of these petitioners Shri Ram Dev, petitioner of Petition No. 3723/94 and Ram Kumar, petitioner of Petition No. 3461/94 are working as drivers. Petitioner Mahavir Prasad of Petition No. 124/95 is working 753 as Assistant Fitter whereas remaining petitioners are working as conductors. As the contention raised on behalf of all these petitioners as well as the respondents in all these petitions are similar, all these petitions are being considered and disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) IT is an admitted fact that these petitioners were charge-sheeted by the Officers of Delhi Transport Corporation. They were charge-sheeted by the Depot Manager to which they were attached and disciplinary inquiry was held against each of them and on finding of the Inquiry Officer that they had committed the misconduct, each of them is served with a show-cause notice issued by the Depot Manager to show-cause as to why the punishment of dismissal should not be awarded to him.

( 3 ) PETITIONERS have come be fore the Court with a claim that the notices issued by the Depot Manager as well as charge framed against each of them by the Depot Manager are the acts of incompetent person. Therefore those acts are illegal and invalid. They, therefore, seek the quashing of the said show-cause notice as well as the disciplinary inquiry.

( 4 ) IT is contended on behalf of the respondents that the Depot Manager is a Competent Authority and the charge framed by him and the show-cause notice issued by him are valid and legal, the present petitions are premature. They are not tenable in law and therefore they be dismissed.

( 5 ) THOUGH all the petitioners in the sepetitions have contended that they were not appointed by the Depot Manager and that they were appointed by General Manager, none of them had produced the appointment letter or any other document alongwith the petition to support that claim of them. No doubt in all petitions except Petition No. 124/95 the earlier Bench was pleased to issue notice to the respondent and respondent has not filed any reply controverting the claim made in these petitions by the petitioners. Therefore, at the most in those petitions it could be held in favour of the petitioners that their claim that they were appointed by the General Manager, has not been specifically denied by filing a reply by the respondent, should be accepted. Therefore, we proceed to consider the claim of the petitioners regarding the validity of the disciplinary action taken against them by assuming that atleast those petitioners were appointed by the General Manager.

( 6 ) IT is contended by the petitioners that Depot Manager is not a Competent Authority to take disciplinary action against the petitioners and the charge framed by him against the petitioner and subsequent final show-cause notice issued by him are illegal and invalid. Shri O. P. Sharma who is representing petitioners in Petition Nos. 3895/94, 4080/94 and 4668/94 has drawn our attention to the provisions of Delhi Road Transport Act as well as the regulations passed by the Delhi Road Transport Authority. It is an admitted fact that in the year 1957 by virtue of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act the public transport in Delhi came under the Municipal Corporation established under the said Act. But in the year 1971 there was again a statutory amendment and the Delhi Road Transport Laws (Amendment) Act, 1971 came into force with effect from 3rd November, 1971. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that in view of Section 4 of the Amendment Act of 1971 all rules, regulations, appointments, 754 notifications, bye-laws, schemes and standing orders relating to the transport services whether made under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 or Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1971 to be in force and deemed t








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top