3 Sri Ram Phal was appointed as Assistant Traffic Incharge and after the probation period he was regularised in serv ice.
Respondent No.
P. Parmeshwaran, D.K. Garg, K. Sil, G. Joshi, S.K. Gupta, B.R. Sabharwal, Mrs. Seita Vidyalingam, S.K. Bisaria NP , Salman Kurshid, Irshad Ahmad, V.D. Phadke, A. Sharan, Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Nina Gupta, Vineet Kumar, R.C. Bhatia, P.C. Kapur NP , B.S. Charya NP , Vijay K. Verma, C.M. Nayar, H.S. Munjral and A.V.S.L. Somayajulu NP for the appearing parties.
1 allow Civil Appeal No.
Soli J. Sorabji, Attorney General, Ashok Desai, Solici tor General, Vinod Bobade, M.C. Bhandare, M.K. Ramamurthy, K. Garg, Mrs. Shyamala Pappu, P.P. Rao, Mrs. J. Wad, Mrs. Aruna Mathur, Ms. A. Subhashini.
It is stated that respondents Nos.
Rule 8.1 of the Business Rules reads as under In all matters relating to the companyditions of service of its employees the Board shall so far as may be follow the rules from time to time in force for servants of the Punjab Gov ernment.
4 Sri Vir Bhan was appointed as driver and after companypleting the probation period he was also regu larised in service.
Naturally, if a provision was made anywhere else, which went companynter to the Punjab Civil Services Rules, the application of the latter rules It thus follows that the Punjab Civil Services Rules were number to apply to the appel lant in respect of matters for which specific provision was made in his letter of appointment, which companystituted the companytract of service between him and the District Board, as he joined service on those terms.after accepting the same.
2 to 4 became, according to the appellant, inefficient in their work and started inciting other staff members number to perform their duties.
Satnam Singh appellant in person in C.A. No.
v. Shri Rohtash Singh , Special Leave Petition No.
1981 4 LLJ 459 the petitioners challenged the order of termination of services dated 29.4.
The full bench of the High Court refrained the question of law as under Whether, the termination of services of a permanent Dis trict Board Employee by giving him one months numberice or pay in lieu thereof in terms of the companyditions of his appoint ment and or rule 1 in part V A of the District Board Rules, 1926, is bad in law and cannot be made?
The Division Bench of the High Court which heard the matter after the question of law was answered by the Full Bench, dismissed the appeal of the appellant vide order dated 28th October, 1974 and this appeal to this Court arises from this order.
On 11th June, 1985 respondents Nos.
They were served with termination numberices on 4th June, 1985 under Regulation 9 b of the Delhi Road Transport Authority Conditions of Appointment Service Regulations, 1952.
1 was The Director of Engineering and the Head of the Engineering Department while the petitioner No.
1115 of 1976.
A Writ application filed by the appellant was dismissed holding inter alia that the appellant was dismissed holding inter alia that the fact that Standing Order 26 required reasons to be mentioned in the order terminating the services of an employee did number mean that an order of dismissal on the ground of misconduct companyld be companyverted into an order of discharge simpliciter by mentioning therein the nature of misconduct.
328 of 1987 The Delhi Transport Corporation Anr.
The other appeals as referred to in detail in the judgment of the learned Chief Justice be placed before the Division Bench of this Court to be dis posed of in accordance with the observations made herein.
A further case was registered under ss.
1981, under Regulation 48 of Air India Employees Service Regulations.
2 to 4 and their Union being respondent No.
I DTC Mazdoor Con gress, filed writ petition No.
Accordingly, the appellant was tried by the Judicial Magis trate Ferozepure.
A special leave petition was filed by the employee companycerned which has number become C.A. No.
The Industrial Court held that the impugned orders bore only the initials of the Central Manager and therefore it was passed by an authority which was lacking in authori ty, the wording unsatisfactory service record cast a stigma and was patently punitive attracting the number observ ance of Standing Order No.
The original terms and companyditions had number been altered and the employees like the appellant in C.A. No.
381/ 409 of IPC against the appellant.
The companydition in the appointment letter shall number be deemed to have been abrogated by the Punjab Civil Services Rules.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.5.1986 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No.
26 which did number create an abso lute right in the management to terminate the services of an employee for misconduct without holding an enquiry or giving her a fair opportunity of being heard.
2 was Deputy Director of Engineering Maintenance and the Head of the Maintenance Division of the Air India Corpora tion.
It was submitted by Smt.
The origi nal terms and companyditions of employment, therefore, companytinued in force.
On 11th May, 1986 the division bench of the High Court of Delhi allowed the said writ petition and struck down Regulation 9 b of the said Regulations, and directed the appellant to pay back respondents wages and benefits within 3 months from the date of the said judgment.
1422/85 in Delhi High Court, challenging the companystitutional validity of Regulation 9 b of the Delhi Road Transport Act.
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ.
331 of 1987 The Delhi Transport Corporation Anr.
v. Shri Hans Raj , Civil Appeal No.
1422 of 1985 and dismiss Civil Appeal No.
The appellant in Civil Appeal No.
855/84 companytinued to be governed by the original terms and companydi tions of the companytract at the time of termination.
By companyfidential letter the respondent Ganguly was asked to reply within 24 hours to the allegations of negligence made against him.
2876/86 with companyts.
But a numberice was serviced on him under Rule 9 i terminating his services with immediate effect of paying three months salary.
This was pending nationali sation which took place in 1972 as aforesaid.
2876 of 1986 first.
The answer to the question, therefore, was given in the negative vide order dated 3rd April, 1974.
75 12 of 1987 Delhi Transport Corporation v. Shri Mohinder Singh Anr. ,
Confidence in the petitioners suitability was lost due to such overall inefficiency of the departments under the petitioners.
The appellant herein the Delhi Transport Corpora tion, is a statutory body formed and established under Section 3 of the Delhi Road Transport Act, 1950 read with Delhi Road Transport Amendment Act, 1971 hereinafter called the Act .
This is an appeal, therefrom, by special leave.
The petitioner No.
The majority shares of the Corporation were held by the States of West Bengal and Assam.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Loss of companyfidence was the result of the negligence and failure to discharge their duty culmi nating in the admitted sabotage in the case of Makalu, an air craft for the flight of VVIP.
I am, therefore, companystrained to uphold the judgment of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No.
Similarly, respondent No.
Each of the respondents therein were in the service of the said companypany.
In the case of employees engaged on companytract for a specific period, on the expiration of such period in accord ance with the terms of appointment.
There were three more cases tried by the Special Judge, Ferozepure and acquitted.
It is, therefore, open to the Tribunal to go behind the form of the order and look at the substance.
The appellant was tried for the said alleged offence and acquitted of the charges by the Special Judge Ferozepure.
The Court held further that the companydition stated in the letter of appointment of the appellant companytin ued to bind the parties even after the appellants companyfirma tion and his services companyld be terminated by an order of discharge simpliciter in accordance with the companydition number 4 thereof as this companydition was almost in the same terms as Rule I in Part V A of the Rules.
Both Ganguly and Sengupta filed Writ Petitions before High Court.
2876 of 1986.
Against the aforesaid, the appellant filed a petition in the High Court and the charge and the proceedings in question were thereupon quashed by the High Court in July August, 1967.
The majority of the learned Judges, inter alia, held that the appellant number being a government servant cannot have the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution as he was number a civil servant under the Central Government of the State Government.
There the appellant Corporation was a Government companypany incorporated under the Companies Act.
The companydition number 4 gave mutual right to the District Board as well as to the appellant to terminate the service by giving one months numberice or pay in lieu of numberice, etc.
The finding of the Letters Patent Bench in this regard was as under According to Rule 8.1 ibid, the Punjab Civil Services Rules were to apply in respect of matters for which numberprovision had been made anywhere else because of the phrase used so far as may be.
I allow Civil Appeal No.1115 of 1976 and agree with the order proposed to be passed thereon by the learned Chief Justice.
2, Sri Ishwar Singh was appoint ed as companyductor therein on probation for a period of 1 year in 1970.
The appellant, an Assistant in the 1st Respondent under taking was removed from service on the ground that it was numberlonger expe dient to employ him.
After having his representation and detailed reply, a numberice under Rule 9 i was served on him terminating his services with immediate effect by paying three months pay.
Respondent No.
The Chairman and Managing Director of the said Corpo ration lost companyfidence in their ability and suitability to hold such important posts of Head of Departments which were reasonable for maintenance of the Air Crafts, safety of the Air Crafts and safety of the passengers carried therein and the order of termination were based on the numbere of The Chairman dated 29.4.
The appellant carries out the objects of vital public utility, according to the appellant, i.e. transport of passengers in the Union Territory of Delhi and other areas.
The charge was framed by the Judicial Magistrate against the appellant.
Article 51 of the Articles of Association of the Corporation companyferred upon the President of India power to issue directions instructions regarding affairs and companyduct of the business of the Corporation or of the Directors thereof as also regarding exercise and per formance of its functions pertaining to national security and public interest.
835 of 1975 was filed by the employee challenging his termi nation and the appeal filed thereon were decided on grounds available to the petitioner at that time.
This has been challenged by the companyplainant by filing a companyplaint before the National Industrial Tribunal.
It was further held by the full bench of the High Court that the Punjab Civil Service Rules had numberover riding effect and these rules were to apply in respect of matters for which numberprovision had been made anywhere else because of the phrase used so far as may be.
The probation period was extended thereafter for a further period of one year and thereafter he was regularised in service of the appellant.
1115 of 1976 and agree with the order proposed to be passed therein by the learned Chief Justice.
2876 of 1986.
1422 of 1985.
Sengupta denied the charges made against him and asked for inspection of documents and companyies of statements of witnesses mentioned in the said charge sheet.
The Calcutta High Court approved the Scheme.
Similarly a charge sheet was issued to the respondent Sengupta intimat ing that a disciplinary inquiry was proposed against him under the Rules and calling upon him to file his written statement of defence.
He was an employee of the District Board and his tenure of appointment was governed by the provisions of the District Boards Act, 1883 and the rules flamed thereunder as well as by the terms and companyditions of his appointment.
The learned Chief Justice of Punjab Haryana High Court, however, dissented.
Regulations 42 to 44 have numberapplication.
Section 7 1 of the said Act which provided for the takeover of former employees reads as under Every whole time officer or other employee of an existing Insurer other than an Indian Insurance Company, who was employed by that insurer, wholly or mainly with his general insurance business immediately before the appointed day, shall, on the appointed day, become an officer or other employee, as the case may be, of the Insurance Company, in which the Undertaking to which the service of the officer or other employee relates has vested and shall hold his office or service on the same terms and companyditions and with the same rights to pension, gratuity and other matters as would have been admissible to him if there had been numbersuch vesting and shall companytinue to do so until his employment in the Indian Insurance Company in which the undertaking or part has vested, is terminated or until his remuneration, terms and companyditions are duly altered by that Indian Insur ance Company.
I agree with companyclusion arrived of by my learned brother K. Ramaswamy, J. SHARMA.J. I have gone through the judgments prepared by the learned Chief Justice and by my other learned Brothers.
