Delhi High Court upholds late DTC driver’s 1988 dismissal, says 1-day enquiry not unfair

Nearly four decades after a DTC driver was removed from service for absenteeism, the Delhi High Court has upheld his dismissal. The court underlined that a “single-day” departmental enquiry doesn’t render the proceedings unfair.

The DTC driver, who died during the pendency of the case, allegedly remained absent from his duty for almost seven months in 1988, leading to a departmental enquiry.

Rejecting the challenge brought by his legal heirs after his death, Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora reiterated that unauthorised absence cannot be excused on sympathetic grounds and that claims of medical leave must be supported by evidence.

“No doubt, the stand that the enquiry proceedings have been completed in a day’s time looks appealing at first blush, but such a plea needs to be seen and considered in the facts of each case. Surely, the facts which have emerged in the present case, as noted above, do show a proper opportunity was given to the employee to defend himself. He had not sought time to produce the documents/evidence/witness in his favour,” the July 3 order read.

Removed from service after 6 years of working

The legal heirs of the late employee of DTC claimed that he was appointed as a driver in the corporation in 1982. While working so, on August 20, 1987, he was allegedly issued a charge sheet for remaining on leave without pay, which had the effect of being absent from duty between January 1, 1987 to July 31, 1987, which is for a period of 161 days.

It was added that the late employee denied the charges, leading to departmental proceedings which ultimately removed him from service by an order of February 2, 1988.

Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noted that the late employee was allegedly penalised twice before for availing excessive leave.

Being aggrieved, the said employee filed a plea challenging his removal from service. Before the labour court, the man claimed that he had availed leave on the grounds of his and his wife’s illness. He also added that he sent the applications seeking leave to the depot official, who granted him the leave without pay.

Story continues below this ad

The labour court in its 2009 order held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in haste, pointing out that the said enquiry was concluded in one day and ordered his reinstatement.

The DTC then approached the single judge of this court in its April 2010 order, who allowed the petition, observing that we cannot afford indiscipline or inefficiency, particularly in industry and commerce, if we are to successfully compete in a liberalised world with other nations.

During the appeal proceedings, the late employee died, and his legal records were brought on record in his place.

Story continues below this ad

Aggrieved by this order of the single judge, the legal heirs of the late employee moved the Delhi High Court with this intra-court appeal.

‘A habitual absentee’

The court found that the evidence placed on record proves that the late employee was provided with the opportunity of appointing a defence assistant, which he declined.

The court also noted that the late employee was allegedly penalised twice before for availing excessive leave. Therefore, the high court concluded that there was no violation of principles of natural justice.

The high court found that the late employee was a habitual absentee and upheld the single judge’s order.

Story continues below this ad

Arguments

Appearing for the legal heirs of the late employee, Senior Advocate Arun Bhardwa argued that the single judge had erred in holding that every possible opportunity was given to the employee to defend himself.

According to him, the enquiry proceedings were conducted hastily by breaching the rights of the said employee.

It was also submitted that prejudice was caused to the late employee when the enquiry proceedings were conducted and concluded on the same day without calling him to produce his leave applications for his absence for 161 days.

Story continues below this ad

It was also argued that the late employee, being a driver, was not expected to produce the record because of a lack of knowledge of the procedure governing the enquiry proceedings.

In the country, representing DTC, advocate Avnish Ahlawat argued that a proper opportunity was given to the late employee to prove his innocence in the departmental proceedings.

She stated that the late employee did not produce the leave applications along with the medical certificates to justify his absence from duty for 161 days.

She also argued that the conclusion drawn by the labour court was clearly perverse, being contrary to the record.