Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 191 (DEL)

KRISHAN PAL SINGH v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

2001-02-14

M.K.SHARMA

body2001
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA ( 1 ) THE present petition is directed against the order dated 1/7/1996 passed by the respondent Corporation re-fixing the pay of the petitioner in terms of the order of the respondent dated 26/6/1996. A copy of the order dated 26/6/1996 is also placed on record, which states that the order issued under memorandum dated 6/6/1987 would be in existence against the petitioner whereby the punishment of reduction to the time scale of Conductor was confirmed by the respondent Corporation w. e. f. 6/8/1987. The petitioner while working as a Conductor with the respondent Corporation was served with a charge sheet on 29/1/1987. Pursuant to the aforesaid charge sheet issued to the petitioner a departmental enquiry was conducted by appointing an. Enquiry Officer. After conclusion of the enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted his report and on the basis thereof the Disciplinary authority passed an order on 6/8/1987 awarding the punishment of reduction to the time scale of the Conductor. It transpires from the record that subsequent to the aforesaid order the petitioner" submitted an appeal to the Chairman of the Corporation on 12/7/1991 and by an order dated 1/6/1992 the Chairman passed an order for holding de novo enquiry intothai case with a direction to the petitioner to participate in the said enquiry. ( 2 ) THE aforesaid de novo enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the same was also completed and a fresh show cause notice was issued to the petitioner requiring him to show cause why the penalty of removal be not imposed on him. As against the aforesaid order the petitioner filed a writ petition in this court which was registered and numbered as C. W. 3924/1993. In the said writ petition it was contended by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the penalty awarded after conclusion of the first enquiry was carried out and suffered by the petitioner. It was submitted by him before the Division Bench of this court in the said writ petition,that since the petitioner had already undergone the penalty imposed on him he could not be subjected to a de novo enquiry and a penalty cannot be imposed on him afresh. It was submitted by him before the Division Bench of this court in the said writ petition,that since the petitioner had already undergone the penalty imposed on him he could not be subjected to a de novo enquiry and a penalty cannot be imposed on him afresh. This courti upon consideration of the aforesaid submission and also considering the records held that fact that the decision dated 1/6/1992 of the respondent initiating de novo enquiry, further proceedings held pursuant thereto and the show cause notice dated 12/8/1993 were vitiated and they were accordingly quashed. The said Judgment was delivered on 22/3/1994. ( 3 ) SUBSEQUENT to pronouncement of the aforesaid Judgment in the case of the petitioner an order was passed by the respondent corporation on 26/6/1996 whereby it was ordered that the orders issued under Memorandum dated. 6/8/1987 would be in existence so far the petitioner is concerned wherein the punishment of reduction to the time scale of the Conductor was confirmed w. e. f. 6/8/1987. Consequent thereto the aforesaid impugned order dated 1/7/1996 was also passed by the respondent. ( 4 ) MR. Vohra, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the punishment awarded In the first enquiry having been set aside and quashed by the appellate authority of the respondent and the de novo enquiry initiated against him having been quashed by the Division Bench of this court, Issuance of Memoranda dated 26/6/1996, and 1/7/1996 is illegal and without jurisdiction. According to him there was no order of punishment as against the petitioner and that both the enquiries have been quashed by the Competent Authority and as such no recovery could be made from the pay of the petitioner as no order of punishment against the petitioner existed in the eye of law. ( 5 ) COUNSEL appearing for the respondent refuted the aforesaid allegations and submitted that since the petitioner has taken up a stand before the Division Bench that the punishment awarded to him by letter dated 6/8/1997 was carried and suffered by the petitioner, the, Division Bench proceeded to quash the de novo enquiry taking into consideration the fact that only one penalty could be imposed on the petitioner for the same offence which he had already suffered. Thus the said order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 6/8/1987 stands upheld by the Division Bench and therefore, the orders passed on 26/6/1996 and 1/7/1996 are legal and valid. ( 6 ) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties in the light of the records of the case. The counsel appearing for the petitioner made a specific representation before the Division Bench of this Court in the earlier writ petition that the penalty imposed on the petitioner under order dated 6/8/1987 had been carried out and suffered by the petitioner. This is disclosed from the contents of the order dated 22/3/1994 passed in C. W. 3924/1994 which- is annexed as Annexure f to the writ petition. The Division Bench quashed the initiation of the de novo enquiry and the show cause notice dated 3/8/1993 taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had already undergone the penalty which was imposed on him by order dated 6/8/1987, which he had already suffered and therefore, there cannot be any fresh order of penalty for the same offence. The order for quashing the initiation of the de novo departmental enquiry was passed because of the representation made by the petitioner that he had already carried out the penalty in terms of the order dated 6/8/1987, and that a second penalty order could not be passed for the same offence. Having made a representation before a competent court of law in the aforesaid manner regarding acceptance of the penalty order passed under Memorandum dated 6/8/1987 the petitioner cannot resile from the aforesaid stand to take up a stand now to say that there is no punishment order passed against the petitioner. In my considered opinion, the Division Bench of this court upheld the order of punishment passed against the petitioner on 6/8/1987 holding that the petitioner had already suffered the penalty Which was carried out. In the light thereof issuance of the orders dated 26/6/1996 and 1/7/1996 to give effect to the orders issued on 6/8/1987 cannot be termed as illegal and/or without Jurisdiction. The petitioner himself represented before the court that he had undergone the penalty having suffered the same and therefore, the orders issued on 6/8/1987 imposing a penalty of reduction to the time scale of the Conductor has go be given effect to, which is so given in the aforesaid letters. The petitioner himself represented before the court that he had undergone the penalty having suffered the same and therefore, the orders issued on 6/8/1987 imposing a penalty of reduction to the time scale of the Conductor has go be given effect to, which is so given in the aforesaid letters. ( 7 ) IN the result, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed but without costs.