O R D E R

1. This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the appellant-Delhi Transport Corporation(hereinafter being referred to as ‘Corporation’) for assailing the judgment dated 12th March, 2013 rendered by the learned Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the W.P.(C) No. 7661 of 2010 preferred by the appellant-Corporation questioning the legality and validity of the judgment and final order dated 1st July, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi(hereinafter being referred to as ‘Tribunal’). The Tribunal accepted the Original Application(for short ‘OA’) No. 1592 of 2009 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by G DaE tE eT : 2A 0 J 2Of4.S 0iH 8l.I 0e1 d by the respondent(hereinafter being referred to as ‘charged

17:53:21 IST Reason:

officer’) and set aside the order dated 24th April, 2009 passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘CMD’) thereby, dismissing the respondent from service. 2. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and the material available on record.

3. Ex facie, we find that the action of the appellant-Corporation in dismissing the respondent from service suffered from fatal lacuna of having been arrived at with sheer non-application of mind in addition to being non-speaking.

4. Undisputed facts as available on record indicate that a memorandum of charge dated 19th December, 2006 was issued to the charged officer and a disciplinary enquiry was held by the Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries, Central Vigilance Commission who was appointed as the enquiry authority by the CMD, appellant-Corporation vide order dated 9th July, 2007. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and held seven out of the eight charges proved against the charged officer. A show cause notice dated 15th April, 2009 was issued to the charged officer by the CMD.

5. The charged officer approached the Tribunal by filing OA No. 1054 of 2009 for assailing the show cause notice dated 15th April, 2009 on the ground that the CMD was neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority of the charged officer.

6. The Tribunal, while disposing of OA No. 1054 of 2009, directed the Enquiry Authority to first decide the question of competence of the Enquiry Authority and thereafter, deal with the merits of the case. The charged officer was permitted to make a representation against the show cause notice. Accordingly, the charged officer submitted a detailed representation dated 27th April, 2009 to the appellant-Corporation. The charged officer was to retire from the services of the appellant-Corporation on 30th April, 2009.

7. It is averred on behalf of the appellant-Corporation that in view of the impending retirement of the charged officer, an agenda was circulated to the Board of Directors of the Corporation under Regulation 11 of the DTC Meeting Regulations, 1981 incorporating a list of issues drafted by the CMD in the following terms: -

“(viii) The CMD submitted the following issues for consideration of the Board of Directors:

"(i) To accord the approval for Show Cause Notice (Annexure-IV) proposing to impose the penalty of 'Dismissal from the services of the Corporation' as it was issued by the Chairman- cum-Managing Director in anticipation of the approval of the DTC Board due to paucity of time as the Charged Officer is to retire on 30-4-2009 on attaining the age of superannuation.

(ii) To take a decision in the matter by considering the facts of the case and the reply submitted by the Charged Officer in response to Show Cause Notice dated 15-4-2009(Annexure-IV) with regard to the imposition of the penalty of 'Dismissal from the services of the Corporation'. List of Penalties is at Annexure-VI.

(iii) To the Chairman-cum-M.D. to issue necessary Orders imposing the penalty as may be approved by the Board, upon Shri A.K. Sharma, Dy. CGM."

8. As a sequel to the above, a Resolution No. 14