Dismissed

Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Meenu Rani

Delhi HC16 Jul 2025W.P.(C)/3841/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order upholding the termination of the respondent's services. The Tribunal had set aside the termination order because it failed to hold a proper inquiry before disbelieving the respondent's medical certificate and finding her involvement in an illegal strike.

What the court decided

AI extract

Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs Meenu Rani — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~12

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 16.07.2025

¶4

- W.P.(C) 3841/2025 & CM APPL. 17863/2025, CM APPL. 17864/2025

¶5

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR

¶6

.....Petitioners

¶7

Through: Mr. Aviral Saxena, Standing Counsel with Mr. Shashank S. Pandey, Adv.

¶8

versus

¶9

MEENU RANI .....Respondent Through: Mr. P Sureshan, Adv.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

¶11

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

¶12

This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 24.07.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, „Tribunal‟) in O.A. No. 1374/2021, titled Meenu Rani v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., by which the learned Tribunal set aside the Memorandum dated 16.11.2018 and the Appellate Order dated 03.12.2021 whereby the services of the respondent were terminated, and also directed the reinstatement of the respondent along with all consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

Signed By:PALLAVI WP(C) 3841/2025 VERMA Signing Da te:2 1.07.2025 19:35:47

¶16

instructions. Liberty has, however, been reserved with the petitioners to initiate disciplinary action against the respondent, if so advised, in conformity with the principles of natural justice and the rules and instructions on the subject.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent had participated in a strike which was a violation of Section 3 read with Section 4A of the Haryana Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1974, as extended to the National Capital Territory of Delhi, and Regulation 15(2) Explanation-(c) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Services) Regulations, 1952.

¶18

He submits that the respondent was given adequate opportunity to show cause against the proposed action, by issuing inter alia a Memo dated 28.01.2021. He submits that the reply of the respondent was duly considered by the Committee appointed by the petitioners, before passing the Order dated 03.02.2021, which had been impugned by the respondent before the learned Tribunal.

¶19

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice of this petition, submits that the Order dated 03.02.2021 was passed without appreciating the contentions raised by the respondent in the reply to the show cause notice.

¶20

He further submits that no inquiry was held in the matter despite the respondent having denied her participation in the strike and

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

Signed By:PALLAVI WP(C) 3841/2025 VERMA Signing Da te:2 1.07.2025 19:35:47

¶24

even her presence in the photographs on which reliance was being placed by the petitioners. He submits that the medical certificate produced by the respondent before the committee was declared to be “bogus and invalid”, without holding any inquiry into the same. He submits that the learned Tribunal, therefore, rightly held that in the absence of an inquiry, the impugned action of terminating the services of the respondent could not be sustained.

¶25

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

The learned Tribunal, in the Impugned Order, has taken note of the fact that the termination of the services of the respondent was not simpliciter and without stigma. Though an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action was given to the respondent, even a cursory look into the Order dated 03.02.2021, dismissing her appeal against the termination order, would show that findings have been given on her participating in the strike. The respondent had denied the same and had even contended that in the photograph, in which it was claimed that she can be seen, she could not be seen. She had also produced some medical certificates to show that she could not have participated in the strike. These medical certificate were disbelieved terming them “bogus and invalid”.

¶27

The learned Tribunal, therefore, in our opinion, rightly found that the findings were made without holding a proper inquiry and

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

Signed By:PALLAVI WP(C) 3841/2025 VERMA Signing Da te:2 1.07.2025 19:35:47

¶31

without giving an opportunity of being heard and presenting her case, and therefore were in violation of the principles of natural justice and as being without any legal evidence.

¶32

Accordingly, we find no merit in the present petition. The same, along with the pending applications, is dismissed.

¶33

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶34

RENU BHATNAGAR, J

¶35

JULY 16, 2025/ pr/my/SJ

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Page 4 of 4

¶38

Signed By:PALLAVI WP(C) 3841/2025 VERMA Signing Da te:2 1.07.2025 19:35:47

Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Meenu Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Meenu Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avtar Singh Vs Punjabi Academy & Anr.

Swarn Kanta Chadha Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Goyal Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Madhu Gupta Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs 736624 N Ex Jwo Shashibind Kumar Poddar

Union of India & Ors. Vs Sub Anil Kishore (Retd.)

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar

Union of India & Ors. Vs Sgt Deepak (Retired)

Union of India & Anr. Vs Sanjay Kumar

Department of Personnel and Training & Anr. Vs Dalip Kumar & Ors.

Mohd. Ajmal Vs Sultana

Delhi Jal Board Vs Sanjay Makkar

Delhi Jal Board Vs Bhupendra Singh Pal

Sheela Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.