O.A. No. 1726/2013. Case: Ashok Pal Singh Chief Driving Inspector Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. No. 1726/2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ashish Nischal, Advocate and For Respondents: V.S.R. Krishna, Advocate |
| Judges | G. George Paracken, Member (J) and Ashok Kumar, Member (A) |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | August 19, 2014 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
G. George Paracken, Member (J), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)
1. Applicants grievance in this Original Application is against the Memorandum No. DMRC/TO/D&AR/MAJ/03/2013 dated 18.04.2013 proposing to hold an enquiry against him under Rule-34 of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Rules, 2005. The Statement of Article of Charge framed against him is as under:-
That the said Shri A.P. Singh, CDI/SHD, Emp. No. 1921, while functioning as Station Manager of AVIT 0900 to 1700 Hrs on 28.06.2012 at Anand Vihar Metro Station had failed to assist the passenger. He instigated and provoked the contract Staff to manhandle the passenger. Shri A.P. Singh, CDI/SHD, has failed to maintain devotion to duty and has acted in a manner which is un-becoming of a public servant and hence violated Rule 4.1(ii & iii) & DMRC Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules.
The statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of the Articles of the aforesaid Charge is also reproduced as under:-
Shri A.P. Singh, CDI/SHD, Emp. No. 1921, was working as Station Manager 0900 to 1700 Hrs on 28.06.2012 at Anand Vihar Metro Station. At 14:45 Hrs a Passenger came to customer care centre to get his card recharged. Smt. Supriya Kumari, CRA intentionally did not issue smart card to an esteemed passenger Mr. Chand Babu Rehman & involved in avoidable arguments with him. Smt. Supriya Kumari, CRA took Assistance of another CRA, Mr. H.S. Roy Choudhary, who changed his uniform to participate in the scuffle with aforesaid passenger. After some time, three TOM operators manhandled with aforesaid passenger. This incidence has sullied the image of DMRC Ltd. Sh. A.P. Singh, CDI/SHD failed to assist the passenger. He instigated and provoked the contractor staff to manhandle the passenger. Thus, Sh. A.P. Singh, CDI/SHD has failed to maintain devotion to duty and has acted in a manner which is un-becoming of a public servant and hence violated Rule 4.1(ii & iii) & DMRC Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules.
2. The Applicant has challenged the aforesaid memorandum on the ground that an identical Article of Charge was issued to him earlier and vide Memo No. DMRC/DGM/(O&TO)/DTAR/MAJ/04/2012 dated 09.08.2012. The said Statement of Articles of Charge and the Statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour issued to him along with the said Memorandum are reproduced as under:-
Statement of Articles of Charge
That the said Shri A.P. Singh, SM, while functioning as Station Manager 0900 to 1700 Hrs on 28.06.2012 at Anand Vihar Metro Station had failed to assist the passenger. He instigated and provoked the contract Staff to manhandle the passenger. Shri A.P. Singh, SM has failed to maintain devotion to duty and has acted in a manner which is un-becoming of a public servant and hence violated Rule 4.1(ii & iii) & DMRC Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules.
Statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour
Shri A.P. Singh, SM, Emp. No. 1921, was working as Station Manager from 0900 to 1700 Hrs on 28.06.2012 at Anand Vihar Metro Station. At 14:45 Hrs a Passenger came to customer care centre to get his card recharged. Smt. Supriya Kumari, CRA intentionally not issued smart card to an esteemed passenger Mr. Chandbabu Rehman & involved in avoidable arguments with him. Smt. Supriya Kumari, CRA took assistance of another CRA, Mr. H.S. Roy Choudhary, who tried to change his uniform to participate in the scuffle with aforesaid passenger. After some time, three TOM Operators manhandled with aforesaid passenger. This incidence has sullied the image of DMRC Ltd. Sh. A.P. Singh, SM failed to assist the passenger. He instigated and provoked the Contract Staff to manhandle the passenger. Thus, Sh. A.P. Singh, SM has failed to maintain devotion to duty and has acted in a manner which is un-becoming of a public servant and hence violated Rule 4.1(ii & iii) & DMRC Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules.
He has also stated that an enquiry was held in the matter wherein the Enquiry Officer, vide his report dated 30.01.2013, found him not guilty. The relevant part of the said report dated 30.01.2013 is reproduced as under:-
OVERALL FINDINGS
40.1 In view of above assessment of evidence vis-a-vis standard of preponderance of probabilities; imputations reproduced in para 19 supra, are held as disproved.
40.2 Rule 4 of the DMRC CDA Rules is reproduced below:
(1) Every employee of the Corporation shall at all times
(ii) maintain devotion to duty; and
(iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a public servant.
40.3 As regards Rule 4(1)(ii); Devotion to duty means faithfulness and loyalty to the employer. CO did not fail in performance of his duty as fully explained above. Concept uses in CDA Rule that maintain devotion to duty implies no faltering, be honest, forthcoming and accountable to action. Holding public office in organisation like, DMRC, requires a high level of professional attitude and eagerness to serve passengers with courtesy at all times, while on duty. CO has not been found lacked on this account.
40.4 As regards Rule 4(1)(iii); Becoming is opposite of unbecoming. Understanding of one will lead to understanding of other. Unbecoming is something which is not appropriate or not in accordance with standards or position of an organization. Conduct unbecoming of an officer would be a conduct which is not in keeping with accepted standards of what is right or proper in an organization. Conduct of CO is definitely not unbecoming as fully discussed above.
40.5 Keeping the...
To continue reading
Request your trial