{"id":211593,"date":"1970-02-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1970-02-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970"},"modified":"2017-04-25T14:48:12","modified_gmt":"2017-04-25T09:18:12","slug":"delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970","title":{"rendered":"Delhi Transport Undertaking vs Balbir Saran Goel on 23 February, 1970"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Delhi Transport Undertaking vs Balbir Saran Goel on 23 February, 1970<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 836, \t\t 1970 SCR (3) 757<\/div>\n
Author: A Grover<\/div>\n
Bench: Grover, A.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDELHI TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBALBIR SARAN GOEL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n23\/02\/1970\n\nBENCH:\nGROVER, A.N.\nBENCH:\nGROVER, A.N.\nSHAH, J.C.\nHEGDE, K.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR  836\t\t  1970 SCR  (3) 757\n 1970 SCC  (1) 515\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1975 SC 661\t (18)\n R\t    1976 SC2049\t (18)\n D\t    1991 SC 101\t (16,47,103,188,278)\n\n\nACT:\n    Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950--Conditions  of\nAppointment and Service Regulations, 1952, Reg. 9, 15 &\t 17-\nEmployee    unsuccessfully   approaching   Court,    without\nexhausting    departmental    remedies-Simpliciter     order\nterminating services as no longer required Whether by way of\nPunishment.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nRegulation  9  of  the Delhi Road  Transport  Authority\t Act\n(Conditions,  of Appointment and Service Regulations),\t1952\nprovides  for  termination of services in  two\tmodes.\t The\nfirst  is  -by\tits clause (a) by  which  services.  may  be\nterminated  without  any notice or pay in  lieu\t of  notice.\nThis  can be done among other reasons for  misconduct.\t The\nsecond\tmode is by clause (b) by which the services  may  be\nterminated  owing  to  reduction  of  establishment  or\t  in\ncircumstances other than those mentioned in clause (a) which\nrelate\tto termination without notice.\tWhen termination  is\nmade  under  clause (b) one month's notice or  pay  in\tlieu\nthereof is to be given to the employee.\t Regulation 15\tsays\nthat  a\t breach\t of  the  standing  order  will\t amount\t  to\nmisconduct, and one of the penalties imposed for  misconduct\nis  dismissal.\t It also prohibits an  order  of  dismissal,\nremoval\t or  other  punishment\texcept\tcensure\t unless\t the\nprocedure  laid\t down  in clause (c)  of  Regulation  15  is\nfollowed.  The standing- order 17 enjoins, that no  employee\nshould\thave  recourse to a court of law without  first\t re-\nsorting to the normal official channels of redress.\n      The   respondent,\t an  employee  of   the\t  appellant-\nUndertaking established under the Delhi Transport  Authority\nAct,  was demoted.  He challenged the demotion by  filing  a\npetition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.  Thereafter the\nappellant-undertaking\tpassed\tan  order  terminating\t the\nrespondent's  services, stating only that his services\twere\nno  longer required and that one month's salary in  lieu  of\nnotice would be paid.  The respondent filed a suit  claiming\nthat  the order was illegal.  On the questions, (i)  whether\nthe respondent's services could be terminated under  Regula-\ntion 9(b) without complying with the procedure prescribed by\nRegulation  15 and (it) whether although the order was\tmade\nin perfectly harmless and innocuous terms and purporting  to\nbe  within  Regulation\t9(b) it was a  mere  camouflage\t for\ninflicting  punishment for breach of standing order  17,  as\nthe  respondent\t had  approached  the  High  Court   without\nexhausting the Departmental remedies, this Court,\n     HELD:  (i)\t Even if it be assumed that the law  is\t the\nsame as, would be applicable to a case governed by Art. 311,\nit was difficult to say that the services of the  respondent\nwere  not  merely terminated in accordance  with  Regulation\n9(b)  which governed the conditions of his  employment.\t  It\nmay  be that the motive for termination of his services\t was\nthe  breach  of\t Standing Order 17 i.e.\t of  filing  a\twrit\npetition  in  the High Court against  the  demotion  without\nexhausting departmental remedies but the question of  motive\nis immaterial.\tNo charge-sheet was preferred under  Regula-\ntion  15  nor was any enquiry held in  accordance  therewith\nbefore the order under Regulation 9(b) was made.  It may  be\nthat  if the respondent had successfully pleaded and  proved\nmalafides on the part of the authority\n758\nterminating  his  services  the\t impugned  order  could\t  be\nlegitimately  challenged but no foundation was laid in\tthat\nbehalf\tin  the plaint nor was the  ,question  of  malafides\ninvestigated by the courts below. [763 E-G]\n    (ii)  As  regards the punishment having  been  inflicted\nfor  misconduct\t the order being a mere camouflage  no\tsuch\nquestion  could arise in the present case.  Regulation\t9(b)\nclearly empowered the authorities to terminate the  services\nafter  giving  one months notice or pay in lieu\t of  notice.\nThe   order  was  unequivocally\t made  in  terms   of\tthat\nRegulation.  Even if the employers of the respondent thought\nthat  he was a cantankerous person and it was not  desirable\nto  retain him in service it was open to them  to  terminate\nhis  services  in terms of Regulation 9(b) and\tit  was\t not\nnecessary   to\tdismiss\t him  by  way  of   punishment\t for\nmisconduct.   If  the  employer\t chooses  to  terminate\t the\nservices in accordance with clause (b) of Regulation 9 after\ngiving\tone month's notice or pay in lieu thereof it  cannot\namount\tto termination of service for misconduct within\t the\nmeaning\t of clause (a).\t It is only when some punishment  is\ninflicted  of  the  nature specified in\t Regulation  15\t for\nmisconduct  that  the  procedure laid down  therein  for  an\ninquiry etc., becomes applicable. [763 H]\n     S. R. Tewari v. District Board Agra & Another,<\/a> [1964] 3\nS.C.R. 55, ,State of Punjab v. Shri Sukhraj Bahadur,<\/a>  [1968]\n3 S.C.R. 244, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2266 of
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal  by special leave from the judgment\t and  decree
\ndated  August  4, 1967 of the Delhi High  Court\t in  Letters
\nPatent Appeal No. 68-D of 1965.\n<\/p>\n
     Niren  De, Attorney-General, D. D. Chaudhuri and G.  K.
\n“Sharma, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     H. R. Gokhale and S. K. Gambhir, for the respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave in  which
\nthe sole question for determination is whether the  services
\nof the respondent who was an employee of the appellant could
\nbe  terminated under Regulation 9(b) without complying\twith
\nthe  procedure prescribed by Regulation 15 of  the  D.R.T.A.
\n(Conditions  of Appointment and Service Regulations),  1952,
\nas  amended  which were framed under S. 53 sub-ss.  (1)\t and
\n(2)(c) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority Act 1950.\n<\/p>\n
     The  respondent was originally appointed as  a  booking
\nagent  under the Gwalior Northern India\t Transport  Company.
\nHe  was\t promoted to the rank of Travis Ticket\tExaminer  in
\n1947.\tIn  1948  the  Government  of  India,  Ministry\t  of
\nTransport,  took  over the aforesaid company.  On  March  7,
\n1950 the Delhi Road Transport Authority Act was passed.\t The
\nservices  of  the respondent were transferred  to  the\tsaid
\nAuthority.  In March 1952 the
\n759<\/span>
\nrespondent  was demoted from the rank of  Travelling  Ticket
\nExaminer  to that of a Conductor.  He filed a writ  petition
\nin  the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at  Delhi  in
\nApril 1953.  The writ petition was dismissed and  thereafter
\nhis  services  were terminated on November  11,\t 1953.\t The
\norder of termination which was passed by the Manager of\t the
\nDelhi Road Transport Authority was in the following terms :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Your  services will not be required  by\tthis
\n\t      organisation  with  effect from  November\t 12,
\n\t      1953.  You will be paid one month’s salary  in
\n\t      lieu of notice.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    There  were certain proceedings before the\tConciliation
\nOfficer\t and in answer to a query made by that\tofficer\t the
\nGeneral\t Manager wrote a letter on August 14, 1956 in  which
\nit   was  stated,  inter  alia,\t that  the  respondent\t had
\napproached  the High Court when he had been demoted  at\t the
\nprevious  stage\t without  exhausting  the  normal   official
\nchannel of redress and without putting in his representation
\nbefore\tthe Appellate Authority as provided in\tthe  Service
\nRules.\t  His  services\t were  therefore  terminated   under
\nRegulation  9(b) after paying one month’s salary in lieu  of
\nnotice.\t It may be mentioned that the Service Rule of  which
\nthe  breach  was  alleged  to have  been  committed  by\t the
\nrespondent was Standing Order No. 17 which enjoined that  no
\nemployee  should  have recourse to a court  of\tlaw  without
\nfirst resorting to the normal official channels of redress.\n<\/p>\n
     The suit out of which the present appeal has arisen was
\nfiled  by the respondent containing all the above  facts  in
\nwhich it was alleged that the order dated November 11,\t1953
\nwas  one  of dismissal and had been passed as a\t measure  of
\npunishment,  the procedure prescribed by Regulation  15\t not
\nhaving\tbeen  followed.\t In para 29 of the plaint  the\tsole
\nallegation relating to mala fides was made in these terms :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   “…….. It was mala fide on the part of
\n\t      General  Manager,\t D.R.T.A. to  terminate\t the
\n\t      services\tof the plaintiff  without  assigning
\n\t      any reason.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A  declaration\twas sought that the order of  dismissal\t was
\nillegal, mala fide etc. and that the plaintiff continued  to
\nremain\tin  the\t employment of\tthe  appellant\twithout\t any
\ninterruption of rights.\t A claim for certain amount was also
\nmade  on account of salary etc.\t The only two issues  framed
\non the merits were:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(1)   Whether   the  order   dated   11-11-53
\n\t      terminating  the services of the plaintiff  is
\n\t      illegal and ultra vires as alleged ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
760<\/span><\/p>\n
.lm15
\n(2)  Whether  the plaintiff is entitled to the\trecovery  of
\nany  amount by way of consequential relief? If so,  at\twhat
\nrate and for what period ?”\n<\/p>\n
The trial court held that the order terminating the services
\nof the respondent was not covered by Regulation 9(b) but was
\nan  order of dismissal from service under  Regulation  15(2)
\nclause\t(7)  and  therefore the\t order\tof  termination\t was
\nnothing short of dismissal.  It was held that the  dismissal
\nof  the respondent was illegal and that he was\tentitled  to
\nthe pay and allowances in the sum of Rs. 4500.\n<\/p>\n
     An\t appeal\t was  taken  to\t the  District\tCourt  which
\nconfirmed  the decree of the trial court.  A learned  Single
\nJudge  of the High Court who disposed of the  second  appeal
\npreferred  by the present appellant affirmed the  decree  of
\nthe  courts below but on different grounds.  It was held  by
\nhim  that  Regulation 9(b) did not confer any power  on\t the
\nAuthority  to terminate the employment of its employees.   A
\ndivision  bench\t which heard the appeal\t under\tthe  Letters
\nPatent\taffirmed  the decisions of the courts below  but  on
\ndifferent  grounds.   It was held that the real\t reason\t for
\ndispensing with the services of the respondent was one given
\nby  the\t General Manager in his letter to  the\tConciliation
\nOfficer.  It was the alleged breach of the Service Rules.  A
\nbreach\tof  the\t Standing Order amounted  to  misconduct  as
\nprovided   by  Regulation  15(1).   One\t of  the   penalties
\nprescribed  by Regulation 15(2) was dismissal.\tThat  though
\nthe  order of termination of services of the respondent\t did
\nnot on its face, contain the reason for the  non-requirement
\nof  his services the real reason was the misconduct  of\t the
\nrespondent in that he had committed a breach of the Standing
\nOrder.\t The procedure laid down in Regulation\t15(2)(c)  of
\nenquiry etc. not having been followed the impugned order was
\nvoid and illegal.  In fact that order had been made by\tway-
\nof punishment.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  Regulation   9,  to  the  extent   it\t  is
\n\t      material, is as follows
\n\t\t  “9.Termination  of Service.-(a) Except  as
\n\t      otherwise specified in the appointment orders,
\n\t      the  services of an employee of the  Authority
\n\t      may be terminated without any notice or pay in
\n\t      lieu of notice-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  (i)\t during the period of probation\t and
\n\t      without assigning any reasons therefore,\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  (ii)\t for misconduct,\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  (iii)\t on   the  completion  of   specific
\n\t      period of appointment,
\n761<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
\t      (iv)  In\tthe  case of  employees\t engaged  on
\n\t      contract\t for  a\t specific  period,  on\t the
\n\t      expiration of such period in   accordance with
\n\t      the terms of appointment.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   Where  the\ttermination is made  due  to
\n\t       reduction of establishment or in\t circumstances
\n\t      other  than those mentioned at (a) above,\t one
\n\t      month  notice or pay in lieu thereof  will  be
\n\t      given to all categories of employees.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (C)…………………….”\n<\/p>\n
Regulation  15\tsays that a’ breach of\tthe  Standing  Order
\nissued\tfrom  time  to\ttime by\t the  Delhi  Road  Transport
\nAuthority  will amount to misconduct.  The  penalties  which
\ncan  be imposed for misconduct are enumerated out  of  which
\ndismissal  is  one.   It  is  provided\tthat  no  order\t  of
\ndismissal, removal or other punishment except censure  shall
\nbe  passed unless the procedure laid down in clause  (c)  is
\nfollowed.   That  clause outlines the. steps which  must  be
\ntaken  in  the\tmatter of affording an\topportunity  to\t the
\ndelinquent  employee  and  of an inquiry  which\t is  to.  be
\nconducted in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
     Now  Regulation 9 clearly provides for  termination  of
\nservices  in two modes; the first is where the services\t may
\nbe  terminated without any notice or pay in lieu of  notice.
\nThis  can be done among other reasons for  misconduct.\t The
\nsecond\tmode  is  of  terminating  the\tservices  owing\t  to
\nreduction  of establishment or in circumstances\t other\tthan
\nthose  mentioned in clause (a) which relate  to\t termination
\nwithout\t notice.  When termination is made under clause\t (b)
\none month’s notice or pay in lieu thereof is to be given  to
\nthe employee.  Thus it is clear that if the employer chooses
\nto  terminate  the services in accordance  with\t clause\t (b)
\nafter  giving one month’s notice or pay in lieu\t thereof  it
\ncannot\tamount\tto  termination of  service  for  misconduct
\nwithin\tthe  meaning of clause (a).  It is  only  when\tsome
\npunishment   is\t inflicted  of\tthe  nature   specified\t  in
\nRegulation  15 for misconduct that the procedure  laid\tdown
\ntherein\t for  an  inquiry  etc.\t becomes  applicable.\t The
\ncontention  which  appears to have prevailed with  the\tHigh
\nCourt and which has been pressed before us is that  although
\nthe order was made in perfectly harmless and innocuous terms
\nand  purported\tto be within Regulation 9(b) it was  a\tmere
\ncamouflage for inflicting punishment for breach of  Standing
\nOrder 17 inasmuch as the respondent had approached the\tHigh
\nCourt under Art. 226 of the Constitution without  exhausting
\nthe  departmental  remedies.  The High Court relied  on\t the
\nobservations  in  S.  R. Tewari v.  District  Board  Agra  &
\nAnother<\/a>(‘) that the form of the order under
\n(1) [1964] 3 S.C.R. 55.\n<\/p>\n
Sup.CI(NP)\/70-4
\n762<\/span>
\nwhich  the  employment of a servant was determined  was\t not
\nconclusive of the true nature of the order.  The form  might
\nbe merely to camouflage an order of dismissal for misconduct
\nand  it was always open to the court before which the  order
\nwas challenged to go behind the form and. ascertain the true
\ncharacter  of the order. -In that case it was held that\t the
\nemployment  was terminated by giving a notice in  accordance
\nwith the rules and it was not a case of dismissal.\n<\/p>\n
     The  learned  Attorney General for\t the  appellant\t has
\nsought\tto distinguish cases which fall under Art.  311\t and
\nthose  which -are governed by statutory provisions or  rules
\ncontaining provisions analogous to Art. 3 1 1. According  to
\nhis  submission\t the concept of punishment is  not  relevant
\nwhen the employer chooses to terminate the employment of  an
\nemployee in accordance with the conditions of service.\t All
\nthat  has to be seen is whether the order made by him is  in
\nconformity  with  the  statutory  powers.   He\thas  further
\nsubmitted  that where the master chooses to follow the\tmode
\nof terminating the services prescribed by Regulation 9(b) no
\nstigma\tattaches to such termination and no question of\t the
\nemployee  having  been\tpunished can arise  nor\t can  it  be
\nexamined  in such a case whether the order made was  a\tmere
\ncamouflage  or\tcloak for dismissing an employee by  way  of
\npunishment  for misconduct.  It has further been  emphasized
\nthat  what has to be seen is the situation obtaining on\t the
\ndate the order was made and no notice should or ought to  be
\ntaken of any subsequent facts emerging out of correspondence
\nor  pleadings in a court of law in reply to the\t allegations
\nin the plaint of mala fide and the like.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tdoes  not  appear necessary  to\t refer\tto  numerous
\ndecisions  which  have\tbeen given by  the  Court  in  cases
\narising under Art. 3 1 1 of the Constitution on, the  points
\ndebated\t before us by counsel for both sides.  In  State  of
\nPunjab\tv. Shri Subhraj Bahadur<\/a>(1) most of these cases\thave
\nbeen  discussed.   By a conspectus of those  cases,  it\t was
\nstated, the following propositions clearly emerge:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “1. The services of a temporary servant or
\n\t      a\t probationer  can be  terminated  under\t the
\n\t      rules  of his employment and such\t termination
\n\t      without  anything more would not\tattract\t the
\n\t      operation of Art. 3 1 1 of the Constitution.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t   2.\t The   circumstances  preceding\t  or
\n\t      attendant\t on  the  order\t of  termination  of
\n\t      service have to be examined in each case,\t the
\n\t      motive behind it being immaterial.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(1)  (1968) 3, S.C.R. 234 at p. 244.\n<\/p>\n
763<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      3. If the order visits the public servant with
\n\t      any  evil consequences or casts  an  aspersion
\n\t      against his character or integrity, it must be
\n\t      considered to be one by way of punishment,  no
\n\t      matter whether he was a mere probationer or  a
\n\t      temporary servant.\n<\/p>\n
\t      4.  An  order  of termination  of\t service  in
\n\t      unexception.able\tform preceded by an  inquiry
\n\t      launched\tby the superior authorities only  to
\n\t      ascertain\t whet-her the public servant  should
\n\t      be  retained in service, does not attract\t the
\n\t      operation of Art. 311 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
\t      5.  If  there  be\t a  full-scale\tdepartmental
\n\t      enquiry envisaged by Art. 311 i.e. an  Enquiry
\n\t      Officer\tis   appointed,\t  a   charge   sheet
\n\t      submitted,   explanation\t called\t  for\t and
\n\t      considered,   any\t order\tof  termination\t  of
\n\t      service  made  thereafter\t will  attract\t the
\n\t      operation of the said article.”\n<\/p>\n
In that case the departmental enquiry did not proceed beyond
\nthe  stage  of submission of charge-sheet  followed  by\t the
\nrespondent’s  explanation  thereto.   The  enquiry  was\t not
\nproceeded  with,  there were no 1 sittings  of\tany  Inquiry
\nOfficer, no evidence was recorded and no conclusions arrived
\nat  on\tthe  enquiry.\tIt was,\t therefore,  held  that\t the
\nservices had been terminated simpliciter under the rules  of
\nemployment  and Art. 311 was not attracted.  In the  present
\ncase even if it is assumed that the law is the same as would
\nbe applicable to a case governed by Art. 311 it is difficult
\nto  say on the principles laid down in the above  case\tthat
\nthe services of the respondent were not merely terminated in
\naccordance   with   Regulation\t9(b)  which   governed\t the
\nconditions of his employment.  It may be that the motive for
\ntermination of his services was the breach of Standing Order
\n17 i.e., of filing a writ petition in the High Court against
\nthe  demotion without exhausting departmental  remedies\t but
\nthe  question of motive is immaterial.\tNo  chargesheet\t was
\npreferred  under Regulation 15 nor was any enquiry  held  in
\naccordance therewith before the order under Regulation\t9(b)
\nwas made.  It may be that if the respondent had successfully
\npleaded\t and proved mala fides on the part of the  authority
\nterminating  his  services  the\t impugned  order  could\t  be
\nlegitimately  challenged but no foundation was laid in\tthat
\nbehalf\tin  the plaint nor was the question  of\t mala  fides
\ninvestigated by the courts below.\n<\/p>\n
     As\t regards  the punishment having been  inflicted\t for
\nmisconduct the order being a mere camouflage we, are  unable
\nto  endorse the view that any such question could  arise  in
\nthe  present  case.  Regulation 9(b) clearly  empowered\t the
\nauthorities  to\t terminate  the services  after\t giving\t one
\nmonths\tnotice\tor  pay in lieu of notice.   The  order\t was
\nunequivocally made in terms of that Regulation.\t Even
\n764<\/span>
\nif  the\t employers of the respondent thought that he  was  a
\ncantankerous  person and it was not desirable to retain\t him
\nin service it was open to them to terminate his services  in
\nterms of Regulation 9(b) and it was not necessary to dismiss
\nhim by way of punishment for misconduct.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t appeal\t is  consequently  allowed  and\t the  decree
\ngranted\t by the courts below is set aside.  In view of\tthis
\ncourt’s order dated November 1, 1968, the appellant will pay
\nthe costs of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
Y.P.\t\t\t\t    Appeal allowed.\n765<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Delhi Transport Undertaking vs Balbir Saran Goel on 23 February, 1970 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 836, 1970 SCR (3) 757 Author: A Grover Bench: Grover, A.N. PETITIONER: DELHI TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING Vs. RESPONDENT: BALBIR SARAN GOEL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/02\/1970 BENCH: GROVER, A.N. BENCH: GROVER, A.N. SHAH, J.C. HEGDE, K.S. CITATION: 1971 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-211593","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi Transport Undertaking vs Balbir Saran Goel on 23 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi Transport Undertaking vs Balbir Saran Goel on 23 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1970-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-25T09:18:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Delhi Transport Undertaking vs Balbir Saran Goel on 23 February, 1970\",\"datePublished\":\"1970-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-25T09:18:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970\"},\"wordCount\":2389,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970\",\"name\":\"Delhi Transport Undertaking vs Balbir Saran Goel on 23 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1970-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-25T09:18:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Delhi Transport Undertaking vs Balbir Saran Goel on 23 February, 1970\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Delhi Transport Undertaking vs Balbir Saran Goel on 23 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi Transport Undertaking vs Balbir Saran Goel on 23 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1970-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-25T09:18:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Delhi Transport Undertaking vs Balbir Saran Goel on 23 February, 1970","datePublished":"1970-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-25T09:18:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970"},"wordCount":2389,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970","name":"Delhi Transport Undertaking vs Balbir Saran Goel on 23 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1970-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-25T09:18:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-undertaking-vs-balbir-saran-goel-on-23-february-1970#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Delhi Transport Undertaking vs Balbir Saran Goel on 23 February, 1970"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211593","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=211593"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211593\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211593"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211593"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211593"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}