Delhi Transport Corporation vs Manjeet Singh
2009 Latest Caselaw 2903 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 W.P.(C) No. 18138/2005

%                 Date of Decision: 29 July, 2009

#Delhi Transport Corporation
                                                   ..... PETITIONER
!                 Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate.

                                 VERSUS
$ Manjeet Singh
                                                    .....RESPONDENT

^ Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh , Advocate.

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) This writ petition filed by Delhi Transport Corporation (in short

'DTC', the petitioner herein) is directed against an order dated

26.07.2003 under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

declining approval to it for removal of the respondent from its service

w.e.f. 20.09.2003.

2     Heard.


3     Briefly stated the facts of the case relevant for disposal of this writ

petition are that the respondent was employed as Assistant Fitter with

the petitioner w.e.f. 17.08.1984. He was charge-sheeted vide charge-

sheet dated 17.09.1992 with allegations that on 23.06.1992 at about

13:00 hours, he had entered the office of Mr. M.L. Aggarwal, Depot

Manager, Naraina Depot without his permission and attempted to hit and

manhandled him with chair, table glass, pen stand and telephone

receiver. The respondent also disconnected the telephone receiver and

its wire and tried to bind the telephone extension wire around the neck of

Mr. M.L. Aggarwal with intention to kill him. It was further alleged against

the respondent that he had broken the pen stand lying on the table of

Depot Manager Mr. Aggawal and torn his baniyan and shirt. The

respondent was chargesheeted for major penalty for his alleged

misconduct within the meaning of Clauses 19 (a) (c) (g) & (m) of the

Standing Orders governing the conduct of DTC employees. A domestic

inquiry was conducted against the respondent in which he was found

guilty of charges leveled against him vide charge-sheet dated

17.09.1992. The disciplinary authority after considering the inquiry report

removed the respondent from its service vide order dated 20.09.2003

and since an industrial dispute relating to general demands by the

workers' union was pending adjudication before the Industrial

Adjudicator, the petitioner filed an application under section 33 (2)(b) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for approval of its action for terminating

the respondent from its service w.e.f. 20.09.2003 and it is this application

which has been rejected by the Industrial Adjudicator vide impugned

order dated 26.07.2003. Before rejection of the petitioner's application

under Section 33 (2)(b) vide impugned order, the Industrial Adjudicator

had decided the preliminary issue relating to legality and validity of the

inquiry against the management of the petitioner corporation vide order

dated 26.08.2002. In the said order it has been held by the Industrial

Adjudicator that not only the inquiry held against the respondent was

violative of principles of natural justice but even the findings recorded by

the Inquiry Officer in his report were perverse.

4 With the assistance of counsel for the parties, I have gone through

the order of the Industrial Adjudicator dated 26.07.2003 on the inquiry

issue line by line and word by word. The court below in its impugned

order on inquiry issue has found that the respondent was on leave on the

date of incident and he had got his leave sanctioned from the

management for the period from 23.06.1993 to 26.06.1993 in advance.

The court below has taken note of admission of this fact by the witness of

the petitioner management itself. It was also noted by the court below

that the Inquiry Officer had not looked into the attendance register to find

out if the workman was on duty or not on the date of incident. Mr. M.L.

Aggarwal who was allegedly assaulted by the respondent on the date of

incident was not examined by the petitioner management either before

the Inquiry Officer or even before the Industrial Adjudicator. The inquiry

against the respondent was got conducted from an officer who was lower

in rank to Mr. M.L. Aggarwal who was allegedly assaulted by the

respondent on the date of incident. Since the inquiry was conducted by

an officer below the rank of person who was allegedly assaulted then

there is every possibility of inquiry report being influenced by Mr.

Aggarwal, senior in rank to the Inquiry Officer. FIR of the incident was not

got registered against the respondent by the petitioner corporation. All

the witnesses examined by the management before the Inquiry Officer

did not say that they had seen the respondent assaulting Mr. M.L.

Aggarwal on the date of incident. No evidence was produced by the

petitioner management before the Inquiry Officer or before the court

below to show why the respondent would come to hit and assault Mr. M.L.

Aggarwal on the date of incident when he was on sanctioned leave on

that day with permission to leave the station.

5 In view of the above facts being taken into consideration by the

court below while rejecting the approval for termination of the

respondent, the impugned order by no means can be said to be suffering

from perversity. The court below was absolutely right in its conclusion to

say that the findings contained in the inquiry report were perverse. The

impugned order also cannot be faulted with on the aspect of inquiry

issue.

6 For the foregoing reason, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in

the impugned orders that may call for an interference by this Court in

exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution. This writ petition therefore fails and is hereby

dismissed.

JULY 29, 2009                                      S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'a'