DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION (DTC) THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN vs MANOHAR LAI (DRIVER) BATCH NO. 26775 TOKEN NO. 68780

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 11.03.2025 Date of Decision: 25.03.2025 + LPA 13/2021, CM APPLs. 790/2021 & 66267/2023 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION (DTC) THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN .....Appellant Through: Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Adv. with Ms. Monika, Adv. versus MANOHAR LAI (DRIVER) BATCH NO. 26775 TOKEN NO. 68780 .....Respondent Through: Ms. Kaadambari Singh, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Muskaan Chawla and Ms. Tanya Singh Kaurav, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT % 25.03.2025 AJAY DIGPAUL, J. 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 1 “DTC”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified Signed By:MEENU LPA 13/2021 Page 1 of 26 KALRA Signing Date:25.03.2025 13:29:53 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