JUDGMENT
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.
(1) The petitioner, named above, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, assailing Order dated the 16th June, 1995, passed by the Depot Manager, Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’), removing the petitioner from the service of the Corporation and the subsequent orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation rejecting the appeals preferred by the petitioner against the above said order of his removal from service.
2.1.The facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Fitter in the Corporation vide order dated 17th July, 1985 and was posted as such in the Central Workshop Ii, Okhia, Phase-1, New Delhi. On 11th August, 1994 the petitioner was given two F.I. Pumps for overhauling/repairs. The petitioner repaired one F.I. Pump but refused to overhaul/repair the other Fi pump. For the above default on the part of the petitioner it was decided to initiate departmental action against him. He was also placed under suspension w.e.f. 11th August, 1994. Shri H.R. Singh, Senior Manager, Incharge Central Workshop-11, Dtc lodged a report with the Station House Officer, Police Station Sriniwaspuri staling therein that the petitioner who was placed under suspension on 11th August, 1994, at about 1.00 p.m rang up at his residence and threatened his wife with dire consequences and also threatened to kidnap to his children. On the basis of the above complaint of said Shri H.R. Singh, proceedings under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were initiated against the petitioner. However, the petitioner in the above said proceedings, was discharged by the Special Executive Magistrate vide order dated 28th February, 1995.
2.2.For the above default i.e., refusing to repair the Fl Pump, given to him for repair on 11th August, 1994, a regular departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and ultimately the petitioner was ordered to be removed from the service of the Corporation w.e.f. 17th June, 1995 vide order dated 16th June, 1995, passed by the Depot Manager, Patparganj Depot of the Corporation. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of removal which was rejected by the Appellate Authority. The result of the appeal was intimated to the petitioner vide communication dated 18th January, 1996. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a second appeal to the Chairman of the Corporation which too was rejected. After the rejection of the second appeal by the Chairman of the Corporation, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the order passed by the Depot Manager of the Corporation removing the petitioner from the service of the Corporation and the orders passed by both the Appellate Authorities including the Chairman, DTC.
(3) Notice of the petition was given to the respondents who have filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents, all the allegations made by the petitioner against the Senior Manager have been denied and it is contended that for the default on the part of the petitioner, a regular departmental inquiry was initiated against him and after the conclusion of the inquiry the petitioner was removed from the service of the Corporation and the appeals filed by the petitioner were rejected by the concerned Competent Authorities after following the due process of law. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the present petition, filed by the petitioner, is wholly unwarranted misplaced and deserves to be dismissed.
(4) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. From a perusal of the documents/material on record it is apparent that an inquiry under the rules, governing the conditions of the service of the petitioner, was initiated against the petitioner and a charge-sheet dated the 26th August, 1994 was issued to the petitioner under the signatures of the Administrative Officer, Central Workshop II.Okhia, New Delhi which reads as under :
“CHARGE-SHEET:You are expected to clarify that why the action not be taken against you for under given irregularities under Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and Delhi Road Transport (Law) Amendment Act,1971 r/w Section 15(2) of Delhi Road Transport Tribunal (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Rules, 1952.
“ON11.8.94 you were given two F.I. Pumps, to overhaul, in which you handed over one pump at I O’clock after overhauling but after 1 O’clock, you did nothing and refused to overhaul the other pump”.
By this act of yours, you have deselected and flouted the rules of Corporation. This conduct of yours is misconduct under Sections 19 (a) and 19(m) of Delhi Transport Corporation and permanent orders governing the conduct of workers. The report giving birth to this charge sheet is enclosed. Your earlier conduct would be taken into account, at the time of giving final orders. If, you prefer personal hearing in your defense, request for the same in your clarification. Your clarification should be submitted within 10 days after the receipt of this charge-sheet at the address of undersigned. If, you want to examine any reliable document available in this office, you should report within 24 hours after the receipt of this charge sheet to the undersigned. If you fail, in reporting to undersigned, within 24 hours for inspection of records and within 10 days for submitting your clarification of charge sheet, then it would be presumed that you have no clarification against this charge sheet, and action would be taken against you as per rules without giving any information to you to this effect.”
(5) After the conclusion of the inquiry, a show cause notice dated the 30th May, 1995, was served on the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why the petitioner be not removed from service? To the said show cause notice the petitioner filed a reply and thereafter the impugned order removing the petitioner from the service of the Corporation has been passed by the Depot Manager of the Corporation. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, while arguing the case on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in the present case has become a victim of the fabricated move of Shri Hari Raj Singh, the Senior Manager, Central Workshop of the Corporation. He further submitted that for the same reason the inquiry was initiated against the petitioner, he was placed under suspension, transferred and ultimately removed from service. With a view to satisfy myself, I directed the concerned authorities of the Corporation to produce the relevant records before this Court which they did produce and which have been perused by me. After perusing the relevant records, produced by the authorities of the respondent-corporation. I am satisfied that the above allegations, made in the present petition are without any substance and appear to have been levelled only with a view to cover up the lapse on the part of the petitioner resulting in his removal from service. The petitioner, no doubt, initially was placed under suspension but on a representation made by him the suspension order was revoked and the petitioner was reinstated in service. This fact itself is sufficient to prove the bonafides of the concerned authorities of the respondent Corporation that they have acted in the present case without any prejudice and in accordance with law. The alleged transfer of the petitioner from Okhia Central Workshop to Patparganj Depot in the month of February, 1995 in my opinion, has nothing to do with the inquiry because the transfer was made on administrative grounds after a period of six months from the alleged incident which took place in August, 1994 forming the basis of the charge-sheet, issued to the petitioner. Had the intention of the concerned authorities been as projected by the petitioner in that event the concerned authorities would not have waited for a long period of six months and the transfer orders in such an eventuality would have followed the order of suspension. Thus no nexus is established between the transfer order dated the 6th February, 1995 and the inquiry, which already was pending against the petitioner at the time of his transfer from the Central Workshop Okhia to Patpargan) Depot.
(6) It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner vide his letter dated 15th June, 1995 requested for supply of the copies of the documents which were not supplied to him and on account of the above said infirmity alone, the impugned order dated the 16th June, 1995, removing the petitioner from the service of the Corporation, is liable to be quashed. From a perusal of the original records produced by the authorities of the Corporation it is apparent that the above said letter dated the 15th June, 1995 was received in the AI(T) section of the respondent-corporation on 19th June, 1995 i.e., after the order dated the 16th June, 1995, removing the petitioner from the service of the Corporation had already been passed. Moreover, the learned Counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy this Court as to how the two documents, mentioned in letter dated 15th June, 1995, were relevant and in what way due to the non supply of copies of the said documents, the case of the petitioner was prejudiced. Out of the two documents, referred to in the above said communication, the first document is a copy of letter dated 16.12.94 by the Senior Manager (Production) Dtc, C/W/S Ii, Okhia. This document is a communication dated the 16th December, 1994 from the Senior Manager (Production) Dtc, addressed to the Station House Officer, Police Station OKhla Phase-1, relating to the alleged threat given by the petitioner to one of his co-workers Shri Rajender Prasad Sharma and as such has no relevance either to the charge sheet issued to the petitioner, or the inquiry or the defense of the petitioner to the charge-sheet. The second document referred, to in the above said communication dated the 15th June, 1995 is a copy of petitioner’s representation dated the 21st December, 1994 addressed to the Deputy Cgm, Dtc Headquarters, Ip Estate, New Delhi with action report. From a perusal of the original records, made available to this Court by the respondent-corporation, it is apparent that the second document relates to the suspension of the petitioner. As already stated, on a representation made by the petitioner, the concerned Competent Authority of the respondent-corporation, revoked the order of suspension of the petitioner much before the conclusion of the departmental inquiry against him. Thus the second document too has no relevance so far as the inquiry against the petitioner is concerned. From a perusal of the original records it is further revealed that after the receipt of show cause notice dated the 30th May, 1995, the petitioner made a request for inspecting the records vide his letter/application/ representation dated 2nd June, 1995. The above request was acceded to by the Depot Manager of the respondent-corporation and the petitioner was informed that he could inspect the relevant documents. Thereafter the petitioner filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice dated the 30th May, 1995, running in 5 pages, on 12th June, 1995. In the above said reply dated the 12th June, 1995 there is no mention of any of these two documents. It appears that the request made by the petitioner vide his letter dated 15th June, 1995 is an afterthought only with a view to have an excuse and prepare a ground for assailing the impugned order dated 16th June, 1995, removing him from the service of the Corporation.
(7) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in case Delhi Transport Corporation v. Dtc Mazdoor Congress and Ors., . In my opinion the above said decision of the Supreme Court is distinguishable and in no way helps the cause of the petitioner in the present writ petition. In the above said case, the question for consideration before the Supreme Court was as to whether the clauses permitting the employers or the authorities concerned to terminate the employment of the employees by giving reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice but without holding any inquiry were constitutionally valid. In the present case, as already stated, for the default on the part of the petitioner, a charge sheet was issued to him and thereafter a regular inquiry was conducted against him and ultimately an order removing him from the service of the Corporation was passed by the concerned Competent Authority of the respondent-corporation under the rules governing the service conditions of petitioner as an employee of the respondent-corporation.
(8) In view of the above discussion, in my opinion, no fault can be found with the impugned orders passed by the concerned authorities of the respondent- corporation. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.