The second charge sheet issued after withdrawal of the first was invalid due to lack of jurisdiction, emphasizing fair process in disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

MADHU JAIN, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.07.2015 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 1870/2014, titled Ran Singh and Anr. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors. whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioners herein.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. The Petitioners were working as Conductors with the respondents, that is, the Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “DTC”). At the relevant point of time, the Petitioners were also active office bearers of the recognised majority union of DTC and were stated to be vocal in highlighting and opposing various administrative and functional issues within the Corporation.

3. This dispute traces its origin to Charge Sheet No. Narela Depot/A.L.(T)/CS-26/11/241 dated 09.08.2011, which was issued to the Petitioners jointly with one Shri Jagphool Singh, Driver. The said charge sheet was issued by the Depot Manager, Narela Depot, and was based on a report allegedly submitted by one Shri Surender Singh, ATI, who was stated to be present at the time of the alleged incident. The relevant part of the charge sheet is produced herein below:

“It is desired that you explain that why departmental action be not initiated against you under Regulation 15(2) of Delhi transport Corporation (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Act 1952.

That on 06.08.11, at around 11 o'clock, you, using unparliamentary language with Sh. Ran Singh, Conductor, B. No. and Sh. Jagphool, Driver, B. No. 10566, entered in the room of Depot Manager where the Depot Manger was talking to Surender, DTC. No.16942.You and your friends jointly bolted the room from inside. You picked up the Depot Manager from his chair and man handled him.

Sh. Surender tried to pacify and opened the door and hearing that many employees accumulated and some body informed the Police at No.100.Before the police came, you fled a way from the Depot premises.

From the aforesaid acts, you disrupted the administrative work of the Depot and spoilt the image of the Corporation.

Thus you have violated Para 19(f)(g)(h) &m of the standing orders governing the conduct of the D.T.C. employees.

Sh. Surender, T.N0.16942, has produced report dated 6.8.11 ,which is the basis of this charge sheet. A copy is attached herewith. On passing the final orders your past record shall be kept in mind. If you want a personal hearing, apply for the same in your reply. Your reply should reach the undersigned within 10 days of the receipt of this charge sheet. If you want to peruse any relied document, available on record, report within 24 hrs. to the undersigned, from the receipt of this charge sheet.

From the perusal of documents, report within 24 hrs to the undersigned and thereafter within 10 days reply to the charge sheet. If you are unsuccessful, it would be presumed that you have nothing to reply to the charge sheet and under the provisions, action shall be taken against you without any reference to you.”

4. The allegations contained in the charge sheet dated 09.08.2011 were that on 06.08.2011 at about 11:00 a.m., the Petitioners, along with Shri Suresh, Conductor, and Shri Jagphool Singh, Driver, entered the room of the Depot Manager while he was interacting with Shri Surender Singh, ATI. It was alleged that the Petitioners and their associates used unparliamentary language, jointly bolted the room from inside, lifted the Depot Manager, namely