DELHI TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING versus BALBIR SARAN GOEL

DELHI TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING versus BALBIR SARAN GOEL

Termination of service under Regulation 9(b) with one month's notice or pay in lieu does not constitute dismissal for misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 15. In the absence of a charge-sheet or inquiry under Regulation 15, and where the foundation for mala fides was not laid or investigated, the termination order is valid, regardless of the alleged motive. The order was not punitive but a lawful exercise of the employer's power under Regulation 9(b).

Parties
Appellant: Delhi Transport Undertaking; Respondent: Balbir Saran Goel
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 February 1970
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Decree of the Delhi High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 68 D of 1965
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Termination of Service, Misconduct, Compliance With Departmental Remedies, Regulations Under Delhi Road Transport Authority Act
Employment Law Administrative Law Termination of Service Misconduct Compliance With Departmental Remedies Regulations Under Delhi Road Transport Authority Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delhi Transport Undertaking

Appellant

Balbir Saran Goel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Decree of the Delhi High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 68 D of 1965

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the services of the respondent could be terminated under Regulation 9(b) without complying with the procedure prescribed by Regulation 15 of the D.R.T.A. (Conditions of Appointment and Service Regulations), 1952.
  2. 2 Whether the termination under Regulation 9(b), although couched in harmless terms, was in reality a punishment for breach of Standing Order 17, amounting to misconduct.

Ratio Decidendi

Termination of service under Regulation 9(b) with one month's notice or pay in lieu does not constitute dismissal for misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 15. In the absence of a charge-sheet or inquiry under Regulation 15, and where the foundation for mala fides was not laid or investigated, the termination order is valid, regardless of the alleged motive. The order was not punitive but a lawful exercise of the employer's power under Regulation 9(b).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Decree granted by the lower courts is set aside.
  • Appellant to pay the costs of the respondent as per the court's order dated November 1, 1968.