Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 1654/2002
st
% 21 December, 2016
SH. SURJAN SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Mittal, Advocate.
versus
PRESIDING OFFICER,
DELHI SCHOOL TRIBUNAL AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition under Article 226 and Article 227 of the
Constitution of India the petitioner impugns the judgment of the Delhi
School Tribunal dated 18.10.2001 whereby Delhi School Tribunal has
dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and has held that petitioner, who was
working as a driver with the respondent no. 2/Tagore School, had
abandoned the services with the said School.
2. The issue in the present case is that whether petitioner had
abandoned his services or the respondent no. 2/School did not allow the
W.P.(C) No. 1654/2002 Page 1 of 7
petitioner to perform his services. The Delhi School Tribunal has held that
the petitioner had abandoned his services with effect from 6.1.1992 and for
which the Delhi School Tribunal gave the following reasoning:-
(i) Petitioner was asked by the respondent no. 2/School vide letter dated
30.12.1991 a photocopy of his driving license bearing no. C-87054735
because it was found that the driving license of the petitioner had already
expired on 19.5.1990. Petitioner is found not to have responded to the letter
of respondent no. 2/School by furnishing the valid driving license as on
6.1.1992, and which was because the license had already expired from
19.5.1990. Accordingly, the petitioner had abandoned his job with the
respondent no. 2/School because he had no valid driving license.
(ii) Petitioner was, in fact, having his own private taxi business and he
owned a taxi bearing no. DLT 2154 whose permit was in the name of the
petitioner and the permit was renewed up to 17.6.1997. The petitioner was,
therefore, interested in his own private taxi business and, in fact, even his
earlier services with the respondent no. 2/School were abandoned by him
for different periods because the petitioner only worked for certain periods
and had huge gaps thereafter before commencing the next service period
with the respondent no. 2/School.
W.P.(C) No. 1654/2002 Page 2 of 7
3. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in this regard are
contained in paragraphs 12 to 15 of the impugned judgment and which
paragraphs read as under:-
“ 12. The Respondents have alleged that the Appellant has a permit for the
taxi. He has filed affidavit with the Transport Department stating that he
would be plying the taxi himself. These affidavits were filed at the time of
obtaining the permit as well as at the time of its renewal. The Respondent No.
1 has given the exact number of the taxi being DLT 2154. They have also
given the number of the permit issued to the Appellant for plying the taxi.
They have filed the photocopies which the Appellant had filed before the
Transport Department. A simple denial by the Appellant that he is not having
any other business is not sufficient to rebut these allegations. He has stated
that he has no concern with the business activities of his brothers. He has not
stated that the taxi belongs to his brothers. He has not rebutted the allegations
that the permit for the taxi stands in his name. He has not rebutted the
allegations that he had given an affidavit before the Transport Department
stating that he would be running the taxi himself.
13. In the face of these allegations referred to above, we have to see the
conduct of the Appellant. Admittedly, the Appellant joined the services of the
Respondents School in 1985. He admits that there was break in his service in
1986 and 1987. He admits that he did not take any action at that time.
Respondent no. 1 has categorically stated that on both these occasions, the
Appellant had left the services of the Respondents once on the pretext of going
to Punjab. These facts have also not been rebutted by the Appellant. The
incidence of 1990 can not be commented upon because the parties settled their
dispute. The Respondent agreed to reinstate the Appellant. The Appellant
agreed to accept a part of the wages due to him for the period he did not work.
14. In case the Respondents wanted to take action against the Appellant,
they would have acted immediately after he joined the services again in
September 1991. It appears that the Respondent no. 1 did not take any action
against the Appellant at that time. On 6.1.1992, the Appellant absented
himself. The Respondents, who had become wiser because of the previous
incident, immediately sent him a notice to join the services. This notice was
repeated on 8.1.1992 and 21.1.1992. It appears that the Appellant was not
really interested in joining the service. He wrote letters to Respondent School
as well as the Director of Education. He even met the Education Officer, but
W.P.(C) No. 1654/2002 Page 3 of 7
was perhaps not able to convince the Education Officer about his sincerity.
The reason for the Appellant’s abandoning his service appears to be the fact
that the driving license, he had submitted to the Respondent No. 1, had
actually expired. When this fact was detected and pointed out to the
Appellant, he took recourse to absenting himself from duty and making
representations against the school.
15. The Appellant has placed on record a certificate to show that his
license was valid upto 19.5.1993. This certificate was issued on 11.3.1992.
However, the School had verified the fact about the validity of his license in
December 1990, when they were informed by the Motor Licensing Officer,
Under Hill Road that the license of Surjan Singh, son of Shri Rekha Singh,
resident of 20/250, Kalyanpuri, Delhi was valid upto 19.5.1990.”
(underlining added)
4. I completely agree with the aforesaid observations and
conclusions of the Delhi School Tribunal because if the petitioner did not
have a taxi bearing no. DLT 2154 in his own name then it was very easy for
the petitioner to have obtained copies of the registration papers of this taxi
from his brother so as to show that the taxi was not owned by the petitioner,
however, the petitioner failed to do the same. In fact, the respondent
no.2/School had filed photocopy of the affidavit of the petitioner before the
Motor Licensing Authority for renewal of his license with respect to private
taxi and a simple denial by the petitioner was not enough because the
petitioner could have got a certificate from the Motor Licensing Officer that
the license/permit of the taxi bearing no. DLT 2154 was not in the name of
the petitioner, but this, obviously, the petitioner did not do because he knew
W.P.(C) No. 1654/2002 Page 4 of 7
the fact that the taxi was owned by him and the license/permit was also in
the name of the petitioner.
5. Further, it is seen that the petitioner tried to illegally cover up
the issue with respect to motor driving license being not valid as on
6.1.1992 as it had expired on 19.5.1990, inasmuch as, the certificate which
was filed by the petitioner from the Motor Licensing Authority of the
license being valid up to 19.5.1993 was dated 11.3.1992 i.e. much after
6.1.1992, and which certificate dated 11.3.1992 did not show that the
driving license was duly renewed after 19.5.1990 and was valid on 6.1.1992
when the petitioner abandoned his services from the respondent no.
2/School.
6. The Delhi School Tribunal has rightly held that the respondent
no. 2/School would have no reason for issuing of notices dated 6.1.1992,
8.1.1992 and 21.1.1992 in case the petitioner had not abandoned his
services, and to which aspect it has to be added that the petitioner may have
thereafter wrote to the Education Officer that he had not abandoned his
services, but, writing of letters would not mean that the petitioner had joined
his services with respondent no. 2/School, inasmuch as, petitioner could
have joined the services of the respondent no. 2/School as a driver only if he
had a valid driving license, and since the petitioner did not have a valid
W.P.(C) No. 1654/2002 Page 5 of 7
driving license hence the petitioner instead of providing a valid driving
license which was valid as on 6.1.1992 instead indulged in correspondence
with the respondent no. 2/School and the Education Officer.
7. Finally, counsel for the petitioner argued that if the petitioner
was an employee of the respondent no. 2/School then his services should not
have been terminated without inquiry, and in this regard the Tribunal has, in
my opinion, rightly relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of
this Court in the case of Rajni Gupta Vs. The Mother’s International
School and Ors., 34 (1988) DLT 262 , wherein it is held that there is no
need of enquiry proceedings being conducted with respect to an employee
who has abandoned his services with the school.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally relied upon the
Division Bench judgment of the Punjab High Court in the case of Som Nath
Vs. Presiding Officer and others, 2000 (7) SLR 346, to argue that it should
be held that the petitioner had not abandoned his services, however, whether
or not there is abandonment is not an issue of law but is an issue of fact and
whether or not there is abandonment depends on facts of each case. There is
no quarrel to the ratio of the judgment in the case of Som Nath (supra) that
abandonment has to be found as a fact, but the facts of the present case
W.P.(C) No. 1654/2002 Page 6 of 7
show, in view of the above discussion, that the petitioner had in fact,
abandoned the services with the respondent no. 2/School.
9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
DECEMBER 21, 2016 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
AK
W.P.(C) No. 1654/2002 Page 7 of 7