Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13321
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J), Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
RAM PAL – Appellant
Versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION – Respondent
O.A. No.806 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Shivam Bajaj
For the Respondents: Shri Umesh Joshi
Termination without adequate justification or adherence to natural justice principles is arbitrary and unjustifiable.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Termination of services - Applicant’s termination for accepting demonetized currency deemed unjust - Tribunal observes arbitrary termination and insufficient reasoning by the respondents - Applicant ordered reinstated with benefits. (Paras 16 and 17)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Termination upheld despite the applicant’s previous unblemished service record - Proper legal protocols for disciplinary action not followed by the respondents, hence, termination quashed. (Paras 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Applicant terminated after accepting demonetized notes; termination was arbitrary without adherence to principles of natural justice.
Findings of Court:
Court found a lack of sufficient grounds for termination given the circumstances faced by the applicant during the demonetization process.
Issues: Legitimacy of the termination order and adequacy of the appellate order’s reasoning.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal ruled the termination unjust as the evidence presented lacked sufficient justification for imposing such a severe sanction, indicating a disregard for fair administrative procedure.
Result: The termination and subsequent appellate order were quashed; applicant ordered reinstated.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. circumstances leading to termination. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the legality of termination. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. judicial observations and interpretation of the law. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. judicial decisions regarding the reasons for termination. (Para 15) |
| 5. final orders and directions by the court. (Para 16 , 17) |
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By way of present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) Quash and Set aside the impugned order of rejection of appeal dated 08.12.2017 being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable, unjust and inequitable.
b) Declare the impugned termination order dated 17.01.2017 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable, unjust, inequitable and quash and set aside the same.
c) Direct the Respondents to reinstate the Applicant since the impugned termination order dated 17.01.2017 is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable, unjust, inequitable and passed against the principles of natural justice.
d) Direct the Respondents to compensate for the loss of pay to the Applicant due to arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust decision and the consequential arrears which are due to the applicant from 17.01.2016 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum; and e) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case."
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The applicant joined the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) as a contractual Conductor on 10.07.2010. According to the applicant, while he was on duty on 19.11.2016, he was pressurized and threatened by passengers to accept two notes of Rs.500 each and he conceded to the pressure on being told that there is a Government of India Gazette notification to the effect that demonetized notes will be accepted at the State Transport Department until 24.11.2016 (Annexures A-2, A-3 and A-4) However, the cashier at the Treasury Department, Dwarka Sector-2, DTC Depot denied to accept the demonetized currency. In such circumstances, the applicant called the Police Control Room for the intervention in the matter. The applicant finally paid Rs.1000/- from his own pocket as ten notes of Rs.100/- each.
2.1 The applicant received a show cause notice from the DTC under the signatures of the Depot Manager dated 19.12.2016 [Annexure A-5 (Colly.)], which was replied by the applicant on 21.12.2016 [Annexure A-6 (Colly.)].
2.2 Thereafter, the respondents issued order dated 17.01.2017 (Annexure A-1) terminating the services of the applicant.
2.3 Aggrieved by the said termination order, the applicant preferred an appeal on 06.02.2017 [Annexure A-7 (Colly.)]. Thereafter vide letter dated 23.02.2017 (Annexure A-8), the applicant was directed to report on 08.03.2017 with respect to his appeal before the Committee constituted for the purpose along with all relevant documents in support of his aforesaid appeal on which date the applicant had appeared before the Committee and explained his case. However, the appeal of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 07.04.2017 (Annexure A-9).
2.4 Thereafter, the applicant had appealed to the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, Hon'ble Chief Minister of Delhi, Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi on 04.05.2017 [Annexure A-10 (Colly.)].
2.5 When nothing had happened, the applicant had filed OA No.3360/2017 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide Order dated 22.09.2017 with the following directions/observations:-
"4. A bare perusal of the Annexure-A/9 clearly indicates that the same is a non-speaking order and the respondents simply rejected the appeal of the applicant without assigning a single reason. The same is liable to be set aside on the said ground alone.
5. In the circumstances, the OA is disposed of without going into other merits of the case, with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the a
