Trived Prakash vs M/S. Delhi Transport Corporation
2009 Latest Caselaw 2475 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        W.P.(C) No. 9140/2009

%                        Date of Decision: 03 July, 2009


# Trived Prakash
                                                             ..... Petitioner
!           Through: Mr. R.S. Roy, Advocate.

                                   Versus

$ M/s Delhi Transport Corporation
                                                           .....Respondent

^           Through: Nemo

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?YES

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?YES

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) CM No. 6757/2009 (Exemption) in WP(C) No.9140/2009

Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions.

CM No. 6758/2009 in WP(C) No.9140/2009

In view of averments contained in the instant application, delay

in refiling of the writ petition is condoned.

This application stands disposed of.

WP(C) No.9140/2009

The petitioner was working as a conductor in Delhi Transport

Corporation. He was dismissed from service after holding a departmental

inquiry against him on the charge that he remained absent

unauthorizedly for 108 days during the period w.e.f. 01st January, 1992 to

31st December, 1992. The dismissal of the petitioner has been upheld by

the Industrial Tribunal then presided by Shri Dinesh Dayal vide award

dated 6th January, 2007.

2 The argument of the petitioner's counsel is that the petitioner could

not attend to his duties during the period of his absence for 108 days in

1992 on account of his illness. Learned counsel has further contended

that the respondent (DTC) never informed the petitioner about rejection

of his leave applied for. A perusal of the impugned award would reveal

that the petitioner has admitted his absence from duty for 108 days

during the year 1992. The charge for remaining absent unauthorizedly

was duly proved against the petitioner in domestic inquiry held against

him. Principles of natural justice were followed while holding the domestic

inquiry against the petitioner. At this stage, it will be relevant to refer to

para 6 of the impugned award which is extracted below:

"In his cross-examination the workman admitted that he participated in the inquiry proceedings. He admitted in his cross- examination that he did not report for duty for 108 days during the period w.e.f. 01.01.1992 to 31.12.1992. He had not sought previous permission for absence for the above mentioned days. He had submitted his leave applications and medical certificates.

He denied that he submitted the leave applications late. He stated that he was not informed about the rejection of his leave applications. He, however, admitted that he used to get his pay slips during the above mentioned period. He has not been paid the salary for the above 108 days."

3 The case of the petitioner is that he had sent the leave applications

to the respondent during the period of his absence and that rejection of

his leave was not communicated to him by the respondent. The petitioner

in his cross-examination, referred in para 6 of the impugned award

extracted above, has admitted that he used to get his pay slips even

during the period of his unauthorized absence which show he was not

paid salary for the period of his absence. This does not lie in the mouth of

the petitioner to allege that he was not communicated about rejection of

his leave. If the petitioner knew that he was not getting salary for the

period of his unauthorized absence then he also knew that he was not

getting salary for the period of absence because his leaves were not

sanctioned. In DTC Vs. Sardar Singh 2004 (6) Scale 613, it was held

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when an employee absents himself

from duty even without sanctioned leave for very long period, it prima-

facie shows lack of interest in work and amounts to misconduct liable for

dismissal of service. The present case is squarely covered by the

judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sardar Singh's case (supra).

4 The Court cannot lost sight of the fact that the petitioner was

employed as a conductor in a public utility service i.e. Delhi Transport

Corporation, at the time of his unauthorized absence. On account of

unauthorized absence of the petitioner from the service of the

respondent at the reporting time of the buses of the DTC, the DTC buses

on which petitioner might have been deputed at the relevant time could

not have leave from the depot and go to their allotted route at the given

time. They have to miss certain trips which results in financial loss to the

management and inconvenience to the commuters. For this reason, the

transport corporation or the public undertakings which are engaged in

business of transport have to insist for punctuality of their conductors or

drivers. If a driver or a conductor does not report for duty at the

appointed time, the management has the right to mark him absent and

reject the application for leave received late.

5 In view of the above and taking stock of all the facts and

circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the present writ

petition which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

6 The writ petition as well as application for stay stand disposed of.

July 03, 2009                                     S.N.AGGARWAL
bsr                                                  [JUDGE]