Denied Opportunity To Be Assisted By Defence Assistant During Enquiry: Delhi HC Upholds Reinstatement Of DTC Conductor Terminated In 1994

The Bench affirmed that the termination of the conductor violated the principles of natural justice. The Court also stated that the enquiry proceedings, which led to the termination despite the conductor not being supplied with copies of documents such as the driver memo and the log book, and only being allowed to inspect the statement of passengers, were correctly vitiated.

A Single Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed, “Non-supply of the log book and absence of proper documents to prove the fact that the petitioner was allowed to inspect the documents considered during the inquiry proceedings, vitiated the enquiry proceedings. Moreover, the factum that the respondent was not allowed to be represented by the defence assistant as well as the past record was not enclosed with the chargesheet, establishes that the enquiry proceedings were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice.”

Advocate Uday N. Tiwary represented the petitioner, while Advocate Vikram Singh appeared for the respondent.

The conductor was issued a chargesheet on the accusation of charging passengers without issuing tickets. Despite submitting a reply to the chargesheet, the matter was referred to an Enquiry Officer. The subsequent report led to a show-cause notice and ultimately termination from service for the “grave misconduct.”

The termination was challenged by the conductor post which the industrial dispute was referred to the tribunal. The Tribunal found that the inquiry conducted by the employer against the conductor was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and ordered his reinstatement without back wages.

DTC argued that the conductor was a habitual offender and that non-supply of certain documents did not undermine the validity of the charges. The conductor on the other hand argued that he was denied the opportunity to have a defense assistant.

The Court observed, “Since the petitioner was not able to establish the fact that any misconduct was committed by the respondent hence, the respondent is entitled to be reinstated. Moreover with regard to the backwages, it is held that the respondent workman is not entitled to any backwages due to his past record.”

“This Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has correctly held that that the statement of the passengers were shrouded with discrepancies as the statements of Zile Singh and Subhash did not mention the exact starting point, the destination and the amount which was paid by the passengers and the two names were forthcoming and there was no statement of the group of five people who travelled from Gurgoan to Badhspur,” the Court remarked.

Consequently, the Bench upheld the decision of the tribunal and held that the order did not suffer from any illegality.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Delhi Transport Corporation v. Ram Avtar Sharma (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:3949)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Uday N.Tiwary and Akshat Tiwary

Respondent: Advocate Vikram Singh

Click here to read/download the Order