Delhi High Court: The instant application was filed by petitioner under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking the relief to allow petitioner to file and place on record additional documents i.e., letter dated 29-10-2008 and 13-03-2013 in the present writ petition. Chandra Dhari Singh, J., directed the Chairperson, Delhi Transport Corporation to file a personal affidavit, after due investigation, stating therein the details of the officer who was responsible for appointing the person suffering from colour blindness/medically unfit for the position of driver with petitioner.
Petitioner submitted that the first document which he wished to be placed on record was that respondent was found suffering from DDV and DN. Moreover, the second document which petitioner sought to place on record was that respondent was declared medically fit by the Guru Nanak Hospital, and he was directed to go for re- examination by an Independent Medical Board for Medical Checkup. Petitioner submitted that the impugned judgment was passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal without considering the relevant documents which petitioner sought to place on record of this Court, as respondent herein was suffering from colour blindness at the time of recruitment itself.
During the course of the argument, this Court made a specific query regarding how the person suffering from colour blindness at the time of recruitment was appointed as a driver with petitioner. Petitioner submitted that since respondent had submitted a medical certificate from the Guru Nanak Hospital, declaring him fit, he was appointed on 14-10-2008 and similarly more than 100 persons who were suffering from colour blindness were appointed due to which, an independent medical board was constituted on 13-04-2013. Petitioner submitted that respondent was terminated on 03-01-2011 due to an accident causing 30% disability.
The Court opined that it was evident that petitioner appointed respondent, who was unfit for the position of a driver as he was suffering from colour blindness, merely based on the medical certificate issued by the Guru Nanak Hospital, which was submitted to the recruitment authority. The Court further opined that for petitioner to rely upon the medical certificate submitted by respondent was a wrongful action on petitioner’s part as the said medical certificate was contrary to the medical test certificate issued by petitioner’s own medical department. It was appalling that respondent was appointed as driver with petitioner and was allowed to drive the buses of petitioner from his appointment in 2008 till 2011, for 3 years.
The Court opined that petitioner had unfortunately not considered whether respondent was medically fit for the position for which he was employed for and did not even take any action against respondent and other 100 persons who were appointed based on the report of the Guru Nanak Eye Centre. It was very disheartening for this Court to witness such negligence on petitioner’s part in appointing its driver.
The Court observed that it was a sorry state of affairs that petitioner woke up only in the year 2013, from its deep slumber and finally constituted an independent medical board on 13-04-2013 for examination of the medical fitness of respondent.
The Court opined that that the matter was extremely serious in nature since it involved an issue of public safety. Petitioner should have acted with due care and caution in ensuring that its driver was fit in all aspects to be appointed to the said position. Hence, this Court questioned the fact to why and under what circumstances, petitioner had appointed respondent without considering the public safety since, such actions might cause serious implications to the public safety.
Thus, this Court directed the Chairperson, Delhi Transport Corporation to file a personal affidavit, after due investigation, stating therein the details of the officer who was responsible for appointing the person suffering from colour blindness/medically unfit for the position of driver with petitioner. It should also state as to why the additional documents which were appended to the instant application, were not placed before the Central Administrative Tribunal at the time of the hearing.
The matter would next be listed on 22-03-2024.
[Delhi Transport Corpn. v. Chet Ram, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 442, Order dated 18-01-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Manisha Tyagi, Harsh Chaudhary, Advocates
For the Respondent: Urvi Mohan, Advocate
