Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Adv. with Ms. Monika, Adv v. MANOHAR LAI

Judgment

1. The relevant facts that emerged from the pleadings are as follows: The respondent/ Manohar Lal was appointed as a driver with the appellant/Delhi Transport Corporation1 on compassionate grounds after the demise of his father, who was a DTC conductor with an unblemished Signature Not Verified 1 “DTC”, hereinafter Signed By:MEENU KALRA Signing Date:25.03.2025 13:29:53 LPA 13/2021 Page 1 of 26 record. This was confirmed to him vide appointment letter dated

09.11.2011 and he joined service on 11.11.2011. His appointment was subject to a probation period of two years.

2. While in service, the respondent was directed to fill out a Character Verification Report2 Form on 18.05.2012, which was then sent for verification to the Deputy Commissioner of Police Office on

26.06.2012.

3. The verification report of the CVR, obtained from the Police Authority vide No. 11181/CV/V/CVR-SB, revealed that FIR No. 53/08 had been registered against the respondent under Sections 448 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, at Police Station Lodhi Colony. It was alleged by the appellant that the respondent had failed to disclose this information in Column 12 of the CVR Form, which required disclosure of any pending criminal cases.

4. In light of this alleged suppression, a Charge Sheet No. GHZ/SL No- 26/12/1105 was issued on 09.08.2012, calling upon the respondent to provide clarification as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The respondent, in his reply dated 17.08.2012, denied any

deliberate concealment and asserted that the FIR pertained to a family dispute over ancestral property, which had no bearing on his employment. Signature Not Verified 2“CVR”, hereinafter 3 “IPC”, hereinafter Signed By:MEENU KALRA Signing Date:25.03.2025 13:29:53 LPA 13/2021 Page 2 of 26

5. A domestic enquiry was conducted wherein the respondent, despite being granted opportunities, declined to engage any representation and chose to defend himself. The enquiry report, after considering oral and documentary evidence, found the charges against the respondent to be proved as he voluntarily confessed the offence without any coercion.

6. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued on 04.11.2013, directing the respondent to explain why his services should not be terminated. In response, the respondent submitted a reply on 08.11.2013, but the explanation was deemed unsatisfactory.

7. Consequently, the order of termination was passed on 08.11.2013, under Clause 9(a)(1) of the D.R.T.A. (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952. The termination order is reproduced as under: “DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION S.N. DEPOT: NEW DELHI No. DM/SND/ AI(T)/2013/3809 DT: 8.11.13 On concealing the facts in CVR a charge sheet was issued bydisciplinary authority vide letter No. GPD/AI(T)/C-26/1105 dated9.8.12 in which charges leveled against driver has been proved byEO (SBU) and accepted by you during the course of enquiry. Andwhereas after considering the enquiry report Sh. Manohar LalDriver B.No. 36775, T.No. 68780 was served a show cause noticeNo. DM/SND/AI(T)/13/3687 dated 4.11.13 proposing imposeupon him penalty of the services of thiscorporation. termination Signature Not Verified Signed By:MEENU KALRA Signing Date:25.03.2025 13:29:53 LPA 13/2021 Page 3 of 26 And whereas Sh. Manohar Lal Driver B.No. 36775 T.No. 68780the reply submitted by him vide Diary No. SN/5361 dated 8.11.13has not found satisfactory. Now after carefully examining the material the case file theproposed punishment is hereby confirmed as follows: He is hereby terminated from the services of this Corporation w.e.f.9.11.13 under clause 9 (Conditions ofAppointment and Services) Regulation, 1952. (a)(1) of DRTA He is required to deposit all the DTC articles in his possession withthe I/c Livery Section within 24 hrs. of the receipt of this MemoNon deposit of DTC articles by him in accordance withinstructions contained in Office Order No. 21 dated 27.1.1954 willlead to pay a penalty of Rs. 50/- per day for the days he keeps anyof the DTC articles in his possession after the specified period of24 hours. In case a Police report is lodged on the date of the loss ofreturnable DTC articles a token penalty of Rs. 5000/- will beimposed at the time of settlement in accordance with Office OrderNo. 3 issued vide Admi-7 (42)/2013/109 dated 3.2.13. Shri Manohar Lal, S/o Sh. Sat Pal Driver B.No. 36775, T.No. 68780 R/o: F-53, B.K. Dutt Colony. New Delhi-110003” Sd/- DEPOT MANAGER

8. Aggrieved by the termination order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Competent Appellate Authority of the DTC on

27.11.2013, which was dismissed.

9. The respondent then approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner by filing a Statement of Claim on 17.03.2014, following which conciliation proceedings ensued. As the parties failed to arrive at a settlement, a failure report was issued on 15.06.2015. The respondent thereafter instituted proceedings before the Labour Court, Delhi, on Signature Not Verified Signed By:MEENU KALRA Signing Date:25.03.2025 13:29:53 LPA 13/2021 Page 4 of 26

05.08.2015, and the matter was registered as LC No. 2319/16.

10. The Labour Court framed issues on 06.01.2016 and 09.03.2016, including whether the departmental enquiry was vitiated for non- compliance with principles of natural justice and whether the termination order was illegal and unjustified. The evidence led by both parties was duly considered. An interim award on 04.03.2017 upheld the validity of the domestic enquiry, and the matter was subsequently reserved for final adjudication. By way of award dated 22.04.2017, the Labour Court ruled in favour of the respondent, directing his reinstatement with all consequential benefits along with 25% back wages from the date of termination. The Court observed that since the criminal case arose from a family dispute over ancestral property and did not involve moral turpitude, the non-disclosure of such proceedings did not warrant termination.

11. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant challenged the award dated

22.04.2017 by filing W.P.(C) 6558/2017 before this Court, wherein the following reliefs were sought: “a) Quash and set aside the Award dated 22.04.2017 passed by the Court of Sh. Umed Singh Grewal, Ld. PILOT Court/POLC-XVir, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in LC No. 2319/16 (Old No. DID 62/15 b) Pass any other order(s) and further orders may also be passed by this Hon'ble Court in favor of the Petitioner and against the Respondents as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” It was contended by the appellant in the petition that the suppression of Signature Not Verified Signed By:MEENU KALRA Signing Date:25.03.2025 13:29:53 LPA 13/2021 Page 5 of 26 material facts deprived the employer of making an informed assessment regarding the respondent’s suitability for employment. The learned Single Judge, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v Union of India4, held that in cases where an employee has not been convicted of a serious offence, and the pending criminal case does not involve moral turpitude, termination solely on the ground of non-disclosure is not justified. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed on 27.01.2020. The concluding paragraphs of the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge are reproduced as under: “8. However, what also emanates from the preceding discussions, is that the lis arose apropos an ancestral property of the respondent, which was sought to be disposed-off allegedly in an objectionable manner, and the response of the respondent is stated to be most natural i.e. to object the entry of a third party into his ancestral property, in which he claims to be in rightful ownership. More significantly, the lis was a dispute between family members, it could not possibly have any bearing upon his work with the DTC. At worst, it was a case of criminal trespass by a third party, whose rights are still in dispute. It is claimed that there is no case of criminal assault on anybody.

9. Furthermore, when an enquiry was made, the respondent had duly furnished the requisite documents to the said Corporation, which has not taken a view on the merits of the case but has simply said that since there was a non-disclosure, therefore, it terminated his service.

10. In the circumstances, the conduct of the respondent which was primarily originated from a civil dispute and allegedly did not entail criminal physical assault, the non-disclosure cannot be considered to be of so significant a nature as to render him to be dismissed from services. The petition raises no significant reason to interfere with the impugned order. It is without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.”

12. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Signature Not Verified 4(2016) 8 SCC 471 Signed By:MEENU KALRA Signing Date:25.03.2025 13:29:53 LPA 13/2021 Page 6 of 26 appellant has filed the present LPA-13/2021 challenging the judgment dated 27.01.2020 in W.P.(C) 6558/2017, wherein the following reliefs are sought: “a) call for the records from the Learned Single Judge and examine the same and thereafter Your Lordships may be please to set aside/quash the Impugned Judgement dated 27.01.2020 (ANNEXURE A - 1) passed in Writ Petition No. 6558/2017. b) Pass any other order(s) and further orders may also be passed by this Hon’ble Court in favor of the Petitioner and against the Respondents as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

13. We have heard this matter on 04.02.2025 where the detailed facts and submissions of both the sides were heard and recorded.

14. The relevant portions are reproduced below for clarity and convenience. “14. We have heard Ms. Manisha Tyagi, learned Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Kaadambari Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. Ms. Tyagi submits that the law in Avtar Singh has been 15. revisited by the Supreme Court in several other decisions thereafter, of which she cites Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam v Anil Kanwariya5 and Satish Chandra Yadav v UOI6. She submits that the position in law that emerges from these decisions is that the suppression of the existence of criminal case is by itself moral turpitude and entails termination of service, and that nothing more is required. She points out that the fact that the respondent did not disclose the fact of pendency of criminal case against him when called upon to do after he was employed with DTC, is not in dispute.

16. As such, she submits that the DTC was well within its right to terminate the respondent and the decision could not have been upset Signature Not Verified