JUDGMENT

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 29.01.2016 in O.A. No. 2548/2013 titled “Naresh Kumar vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.” passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’)

whereby the said OA was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that consequent upon his selection by the DSSSB, he was appointed by the respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation, as a Driver on probation for a period of two years with effect from 09.07.2009. There was no criminal case registered/pending against him at the time of appointment.

3. As per the petitioner, a false criminal case, vide FIR No.140/2009 dated 06.08.2009 under Section 307 IPC, P.S. Kanjhawala, Delhi was registered against him. The Additional Sessions Judge, Outer (II) Rohini Court, Delhi, granted him anticipatory bail. The intimation regarding the said FIR and anticipatory bail was given by him to the respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation.

4. The police, after completion of investigation, submitted the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., 1973 stating that no evidence was found against the petitioner. Though he was discharging his duties satisfactorily, the respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation extended his probation period by one more year, i.e., up to 08.07.2012. The respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation again extended his probation period on second occasion for six months up to

08.01.2013, and on third occasion for six months up to 08.07.2013.

5. Thereafter, the respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation, vide impugned order dated 05.07.2013, terminated his services under Clause 9 (a) (i) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952 (hereinafter, in short referred to as ‘the Regulations’) with immediate effect. It is contended by the petitioner that the respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation terminated his services without issuing any notice to him.

6. According to the petitioner, there was no criminal case pending against him. Though during the period of probation, he was discharging his duties satisfactorily, the respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation, instead of confirming him in the service, illegally and arbitrarily terminated his services.

7. The respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation had filed a counter reply opposing the O.A. It is stated by the respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation that in the attestation form, the petitioner specifically mentioned that no criminal case was pending against him, and that he was not involved in any criminal case. During verification of his character and antecedent, it was revealed that the petitioner was involved in criminal case, FIR No. 140/09 dated 06.08.2009, P.S. Kanjhawala, Delhi under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. Further, during the period of probation, the petitioner was awarded punishment of ‘Censure’ for his unauthorized absence from duty with effect from 01.01.2010 to 24.01.2010. The appointment order stipulated that the petitioner would be on probation for a period of two years. His performance for two years during the period of probation was taken into consideration.

9. In paragraph 8 of the counter reply, the respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation has stated thus:

“The guidelines for Drivers, who are on probation, are as follows:

Drivers on probation (during the first year):

(i) For Termination (a) If a driver is involved in a major accident case and is not acquitted by the Court or is considered at fault by the accident Committee.

(b) If a driver is involved in more than three minor accidents or four damage cases.

(c) If the number of punishments on counts other than accidents exceeds eighty.

(d) If the number of leave without pay exceeds

45 days on grounds other than illness or exceeds 60 days in all.

Drivers on probation (during the second year):

During the extended period of probation, the same is formula as indicated above du