LexDELHI TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING versus BALBIR SARAN GOEL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H DELHI TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING v. BALBIR SARAN GOEL February 23, 1970 [J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 7 5 'I Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950-Conditions of Appoint- 111ent and Service Regulations, 1952, Reg. 9, 15 & 17-En1ployee un~ successfully approacViing Court, without exhausting depar11nental renze~ dies-Simpliciter order terminating seri•ices as no longer required- JVhether by way of Punishn1ent. Regulation 9 df the Delhi Road Transport Authority Act (Conditions of . ..\ppointment and Service Regulations), 1952 provides for ,termination oi services in two modes. The first is by its clause (a) by ¥:hich services may be terminated without any notice or pay in lieu of notice. This can be done among other reasons for misconduct. The second mode is by clause (b) by which the services may be terminated owing to reduction of establishment or in circumstances other than those mentioned in clause (al which relate to termination without notice. When termination is made under clause (b) one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof is to be gi,·en to the employee. Regulation 15 says that a breach of the standing order will amount to misconduct, and one of the penalties_ imposed. for nlisconduct is dismissal. It also prohibits an order of dismissal, reflloval or other punishment except censure unless the procedure laid down ·in clouse (c) of Regulation 15 is followed. The standing order 17 enjoins that no employee should have recourse to a court of law without first re- sorting to the normal official channels of redress. 1-hc respondent. an cn1ployec of the appellant-J]ndertaking establish- ed under the Delhi Transport Authority Act, was demoted. He challeng- ed the demotion by filing a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Thereafter the appellant-undertaking passed an order terminating the respondent's services, stating only that his services were no longer required ttn<l that one inonth's salary in lieu o'f notice would be paid. The respon· <li.:-nt filed a suit claiming that the order \Vas illegal. On the questions, ( i l whether the respondent's services could be terminated under Regula- tion 9(b) without complying v1ith the procednre pr:escribed l;>y Regulation 15. and (ii) whether although the or<ler was made in perfectly harmless and innocuous terms and purporting to be within Regulation 9(b) it was a mere camouflage for inflicting punishment for breach of standing order J 7. as the respondent had approached the High Court without exhausting the Departmental remedies. this Court. HELD : (i) Even if it be assun1e<l that the. law is t~e same as would be applicablf to, a case governed by· Art. 311. 1t w3:s d1fficu_It to say that the services of the respondent ~·ere not merely ~e~rm1nated . 1n accordance ~·ith Regulation 9(b) which governed the cond_ltLons _of his employment. It n1av be that the motive for termination of ht~ service~ was the bre~ch o'f St:inding Order 17 i.e. of filing a writ petition in th~ High Court aga1!1st the demotion without exhausting departmental re~ed1e5 but the questI}~ of motive is immaterial. No charge-sheet was prefe,rred under hRegud a ti on 15 nor was any enqUiry held in accord~bce t~:tif' 1i~e b:!~~~ntd;n~ h!~ under Regulation 9(b) was maded. It lmfiaj ~n the part of the authority successfully pleaded and prove 1na a ' es 758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1970) 3 S.C.R. terminating his services the impugned order could be legitimately challeng- ed but no foundation was laid in that behalf in the pfaint nor was the question of malafides investigated by the courts below. (763 E-G] (ii) As regards the punishment having been inflicted for misconduct the order being a mere camouflage no such question could arise in the present case. Regulation 9(b) clearly empowered the authorities to termi- nate the se·rvices after giving one month's notice or pay in lieu of notice. The order was unequivocally made in terms of that Regulation. Even if the employers of the respondent thought thaf he was a cantankerous per- son and it was not desirable to retain him in service it was open to them to terminate his services in terms of Regulation 9(b) and it was not neces- sary to dismiss him by way of punishment for misconduct. If the em- p]oyer chooses to terminate the services in accordance with clause ( b) of Regulation 9 after giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof it cannot amo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.