Allowed

Delhi Transport Corporation v. Prem Narayan

Delhi HC6 Jul 2017W.P.(C)/9573/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award that set aside a punishment of withholding two increments. The court upheld the punishment, rejecting the claim of coercion and rejecting the argument that an administrative domestic enquiry could not hold despite a criminal acquittal based on lack of witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award set aside; punishment of withholding two increments upheld; pending application disposed of.

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Prem Narayan — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~6

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 06^th July, 2017

¶4

- W.P.(C) 9573/2015 & CM No.22613/2015

¶5

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Uday N. Tiwary, Mr. Sunil Kumar Ojha, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

PREM NARAYAN ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sumit Rana, Mr. Siddharth, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

¶9

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶10

The petitioner has challenged the award dated 2^nd June, 2015 whereby the learned Industrial Tribunal has set aside the punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect imposed by the petitioner on the respondent.

¶11

The respondent is a driver with DTC. On 13^th March, 2002, the respondent was driving bus No.DL-1PB-0181 on route no.521. At about 6.36 am, the respondent took a right turn under the Moolchand flyover and hit a pedestrian, Lal Bahadur who suffered fatal injuries. The petitioner initiated domestic enquiry against the respondent in which the respondent pleaded guilty whereupon the petitioner imposed a punishment of stoppage of two annual increments on the respondent.

¶12

Page 1 of 4

¶13

W.P.(C) 9573/2015

¶14

The legal representatives of the deceased, Lal Bahadur filed an application for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The DTC bus was validly insured with National Insurance Company Limited and vide judgment dated 24^th August, 2004, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,92,000/- to the legal representatives of the deceased.

¶15

The respondent was prosecuted under Section 279/304A IPC. However, the criminal case resulted in acquittal on the ground that the police could not produce any eye witness.

¶16

The respondent challenged the imposition of punishment by the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that no evidence was recorded in the enquiry to prove the guilt of the respondent. The respondent pleaded that he signed a paper without reading on the assurance that no action would be taken against him and he was misguided to admit the facts.

¶17

The learned Industrial Tribunal held that the respondent admitted the guilt under coercion. The Industrial Tribunal further held that no eye witness was examined to prove the negligence of the respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the original record which contains the inspection report after the accident. As per the inspection report, the pedestrian hurriedly/blindly appeared before the DTC bus whereas the respondent failed to control the speed of the bus and hit the man. The inspection report observed that both pedestrian and driver of DTC bus were at fault. The petitioner did not lead any evidence in the enquiry in view of the respondent’s admitting the guilt and the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments is fair and reasonable.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondent urged that the respondent has been

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

W.P.(C) 9573/2015

¶21

acquitted in the criminal case. It is further submitted that no eye witness was examined by the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings. It is further submitted that the respondent’s admission was under coercion and therefore, not binding on the respondent.

¶22

This Court is of the view that the finding of coercion by the Industrial Tribunal is not based on any cogent evidence. The respondent admitted in the statement of claim that he signed the admission of guilt without reading on the assurance that no action would be taken against him. However, no evidence was led to prove who gave him such assurance. The admission of guilt by the respondent is held to be voluntary. In view of the admission of guilt, the petitioner was justified in not leading the evidence. The acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case is on the ground that the prosecution was unable to produce the eye witness whereas the award of compensation of Rs.3,92,000/- by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the legal representatives of the deceased is based on the negligence of the respondent. This Court is of the view that the accident in question would not have occurred if the respondent had full control over the vehicle. Even if the pedestrian was negligent, the respondent was not in full control over the vehicle. The respondent was contributory negligent and the punishment of stoppage of two increments by the petitioner is just, fair and reasonable. 10. The petition is allowed; impugned award is set aside and the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect by the petitioner is upheld. The pending application is disposed of.

¶23

Page 3 of 4

¶24

W.P.(C) 9573/2015

¶25

Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Master.

July 06, 2017 dk

J.R. MIDHA, J.

Page 4 of 4

W.P.(C) 9573/2015

Delhi Transport Corporation v. Prem Narayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Delhi Transport Corporation v. Prem Narayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Sharma Vs D.T.T.D.C.

Satyendra Kumar Jha Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S. Trenchless Engineering Services (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mandeep Vs Ministry of Railway, Govt. of India & Ors.

Amita Giri Vs Lt Governor and Anr.

Janta College of Pharmacy Vs Pharmacy Council of India

Raningliu Riamei Vs Union of India & Anr.

Deepak Kapoor Vs Govt. NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Sharad Sharma Vs Yashpal Singh Joshia & Anr.

Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pareshwari & Ors.

Mahendra Kumar Malhotra Vs Vindvasini and Ors.

Chitrangad Singh Raghav Vs Archna Raghav

Vinod Kumar Mahore Vs Geeta Mahore