Thu. Dec 3rd, 2020

Bijender Singh vs D.T.C. on 7 May, 2018

2 min read

2. These writ petitions have been analogously heard by me, and
are being disposed of by this common judgement.

3. The sequence of this litigation is required to be traced, at the

4. The workman was, while he was employed as the Conductor in
DTC, issued a charge sheet dated 12th January, 1990, proposing to take
action against him, under the Delhi Road Transport Amendment
Laws, 1971 read with the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions
& Appointment of Service) Regulations, 1952. It was alleged, therein,
that, on 31st December, 1989, while he was on duty on Bus No.DVP-
6486, which was running between Ajmer and Delhi, he had failed to
issue tickets to two employees of Haryana Roadways, and that, on
objection thereto being taken by Mr. Hari Raj Singh, Regional
Manager (Technical) in the DTC, who was also travelling in the same
bus, the workman “abused” him, “misbehaved” with him and
employed “unparliamentary language”. It was further alleged that, on

WPC 17931/2004 & 20084/2004 Page 2 of 46
Hari Raj Singh objecting to the workman smoking in the running bus,
the workman misbehaved with him. These acts, on the part of the
workman, it was alleged, contravened Clauses 6 and 7 of the Circular
in which the duties of conductors in the DTC were prescribed, and
amounted, consequently, to misconduct. The workman was, therefore,
directed to show cause against action being taken against him therefor.
A copy of the report, dated 4th January, 1990, of Hari Raj Singh, on
the basis of which, avowedly, the chargesheet had been issued, was
appended to the chargesheet.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply