Mr. R. C. Lahoti, J.-

( 1 ) THIS petition filed on 16. 8. 94 by an employee of the respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation, holding post of a Driver, seeks quashing of the charge-sheet dated 19. 2. 87 (Annexure P-2) and notice dated 17. 8. 87 (Annexure P-l ) requiring him to show cause against the proposed penalty in a departmental enquiry proceedings.

( 2 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are unhesitatingly of the opinion that the present petition is not only not maintainable, but is also a gross abuse of the process of the Court and hence must be dismissed.

( 3 ) THE charge against the petitioner was for his remaining absent frequently on 165 days leave without pay from the period from 1. 10. 85 to 30. 9. 86 amounting to misconduct within the meaning of para 19 (1) of the Standing Orders governing the DTC employees.

( 4 ) INSTEAD of answering the show cause notice, the petitioner chose to try his luck before a Civil Court. On 11. 9. 1987he filed a civil suit in the Court of Sub-Judge, Delhi and therein on 15. 9. 87 he succeeded in securing an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining further proceedings in the D. E. The DTC contensted the civil suit. On 30. 7. 94, the learned Sub-Judge directed not only the interim injunction to be vacated but also held the suit not maintainable and dismissed the same. The copy of the judgment was not filed on the record before us by either party but on our asking it was made available for our perusal by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Sub-Judge has held that in view of the Standing Order No. l7 the plaintiff was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of Civil Court; his remedy under the service rules and regulations was to face the departmental enquiry and if the result may go against him then to file an appeal. The learned Subjudge also quoted and followed the following statement of law from a Division Bench decision of this Court Inder Raj Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation, OMP 3346/92 and CW 6214/92, (order dated 15. 1. 93) - "if an order is passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment the petitioner has a right of appeal before the Appellate Authority. Once again all the legal and factual contentions can be raised by the petitioner and, therefore, as a matter of judicial restraint a writ Court under Article 226 should not interfere at this stage. "

( 5 ) THE order of the learned Sub-Judge was neither appealed against nor the advise tendered therein appealed to the petitioner. On 16. 8. 94 he filed the present petition. Once again on 18. 8. 94 he succeeded in securing an ex-parte ad-interim writ- "meanwhile no further steps in connection with the show cause notice dated 19. 2. 87 be taken. "

( 6 ) THE respondents have vehmently opposed the maintainability of the petition with emphasis on the unbecoming conduct and obstinate attitude of the petitioner. It is submitted that all the contentions which are raised in the writ petition are available to be raised by the petitioner in reply to the impugned show cause notice. On pages 5 to 7 facts have been stated in a tabulised form showing how the petitioner had been abstaining himself on the pretext of the sickness of one or the other member of his family, at times of his own sickness and certainly without 606 THE DELHI LAW TIMES 1995 seeking leave. 606

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the use of the words "availed 165 days leave without pay" used in the charge sheet go to show that leave without pay was sanctioned to the petitioner and therefore he could not have been charge sheeted at all because the leave on being sanctioned though without pay would be deemed to be a regularised leave. Secondly, it is submitted that the charge sheet is vague as it does not set out the fact of the leave having been refused to the petitioner.

( 8 ) BOTH the contentions have impressed us not even prima fade. The petitioner cannot make much capital out of the use of the words "av

Click Here to Read the rest of this document