Acquittal in criminal case bars simultaneous disciplinary action for same charges.

The applicant, Tejbir, was appointed as a Driver with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) on 15.07.2011.

While on probation, a vehicle he was driving was involved in an accident, leading to an FIR under Sections 279, 338, 204A, 427 of the IPC.

He was placed under suspension from 07.01.2012, which was later revoked on 16.03.2012.

A departmental proceeding was initiated with a charge memo dated 09.02.2012, alleging negligence.

The Inquiry Officer found the allegations proved, leading the Disciplinary Authority to order his removal from service on 24.01.2013.

The applicant's appeal was rejected on 01.05.2015.

Crucially, the applicant was acquitted in the aforementioned FIR by the Trial Court on 19.04.2016, and this judgment attained finality.

The applicant contended that the accident was not due to his negligence but due to a cyclist ramming into his vehicle.

He also argued that the charge memo violated DTC Circulars dated 19.12.1973 and 02.01.2003, which stipulate that disciplinary proceedings need not be initiated if an employee is suspended due to serious criminal action, and action should be based on the judicial case outcome.

The Disciplinary Authority's removal order dated 24.01.2013 did not consider the applicant's submissions.

The Appellate Authority's order dated 01.05.2015 acknowledged that no prosecution witnesses were present at the accident spot.

Whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant, leading to his removal from service, were in violation of the respondent's own Circulars dated 19.12.1973 and 02.01.2003.

Whether the impugned orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities were passed mechanically, without considering the applicant's defence or sufficient evidence.

Whether the subsequent acquittal of the applicant in the criminal case related to the same incident impacts the validity of the disciplinary action taken against him.

The court applied the principles enshrined in the Delhi Transport Corporation Circulars No. AdmI-3(18)/73 dated 19.12.1973 and No. Adm L-3 (18)/2003 dated 02.01.2003, which mandate that where employees are suspended due to serious criminal action, they should not be charge-sheeted, and the action for removal should be based on the result of the judicial case without initiating a disciplinary inquiry, unless the acts are materially different from the criminal charges.

The court also implicitly relied on the principles of natural justice, requiring the Disciplinary Authority to consider submissions and for decisions to be reasoned and based on evidence, particularly given the finding by the Appellate Authority that there were no prosecution witnesses.

The Tribunal found that the charge memo issued against the applicant was contrary to the DTC's own policy as set out in Circulars dated 19.12.1973 and 02.01.2003.

These Circulars explicitly state that if an employee is involved in a serious criminal action leading to suspension, disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated, and any action for removal should await the outcome of the judicial case.

The applicant was involved in an FIR and suspended, directly implicating these Circulars.

Furthermore, the Disciplinary Authority's order dated 24.01.2013 was deemed mechanical, as it failed to consider the applicant's defence or submissions.

Significantly, the Appellate Authority itself recorded that no prosecution witnesses were present at the accident spot, raising serious doubts on how the misconduct of negligent driving could have been proved by the Inquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority.

The applicant's subsequent acquittal in the criminal case related to the same accident where the Trial Court found him not guilty reinforced the Tribunal's finding that the disciplinary action lacked foundation and was in violation of established procedures and principles.

The applicant's statement dated 06.01.2012 did not admit rash or negligent driving.

The impugned charge memo dated 24.01.2013, the Inquiry Officer's Report, the Appellate Authority's order dated 01.05.2015, and the order dated 29.08.2017 were quashed and set aside.

The applicant was directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits, in accordance with relevant rules and instructions.

The respondents were granted liberty to take action for alleged misconduct only in accordance with relevant rules and instructions on the subject.

The directions are to be complied with within six weeks.

No order as to costs was made.