Nathu Ram v. Dtc
Case brief
What is this about?
In a writ petition challenging a departmental removal order and dismissal of an appeal, the court dismissed the petitioner's plea. The court noted a 509-day unauthorized absence with insufficient medical explanations for the initial period and upheld the penalty based on adverse ACR entries.
What did the court decide?
The writ petition was dismissed.
What the court decided
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
+ WRIT PETITON (CIVIL) NO. 6603/2011
% Date of order: 9th September, 2011
NATHU RAM ....Petitioner
Through Mr. Anil Mittal & Mr. Amritansh Batheja, Advocates.
VERSUS
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION …..Respondent Through Ms. Avnish Ahlawat & Mr. Dushyant Arora, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
SANJIV KHANNA, J.:
Learned counsel for the petitioner-Nathu Ram, submits
that the petitioner was not well and was referred to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital by the DTC Medical Board vide prescription slip dated 20th March, 2008. It is submitted that the departmental authorities and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (the tribunal, for short) have ignored the medical prescriptions and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the tribunal dated 15th April, 2011 dismissing O.A. No. 3483/2010 and the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was justified in challenging the dismissal of his appeal against removal for unauthorized absence.
Whether the departmental authorities acted arbitrarily in initiating disciplinary proceedings after a long delay.
Whether the medical prescriptions placed on record sufficiently explained the unauthorized absence period.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
NATHU RAM
- respondent
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Coram
SANJIV KHANNA
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court