Shri Ramesh Kumar vs Delhi Transport Corporation
2009 Latest Caselaw 3679 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C.) No. 5377/2008

%                  Date of Decision: 10th September, 2009

# SHRI RAMESH KUMAR
                                                   ..... PETITIONER
!                  Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate.

                                 VERSUS

$ DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
                                                  .....RESPONDENT

^                  Through: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, Advocate.

CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The petitioner in this writ petition seeks to challenge an industrial

award dated 01.09.2007 in ID No.141/2000 by which his removal from

the service of the DTC has been found to be lawful and for that reason,

he has been denied any relief by the Industrial Adjudicator.

2 The petitioner was working as a Conductor with the DTC. He was

removed from the service w.e.f. 18.12.1992 for remaining absent

unauthorizedly for 129 days during the period from 01.01.1991 to

31.12.1991. The court below in para 14 of the impugned award has noted

the past conduct of the petitioner while affirming his removal from the

service of the DTC. The petitioner was a habitual absentee and he

remained unauthorizedly absent for 99 days in 1989, 153 days in 1990

and for 129 days in 1991. In fact the petitioner admits his unauthorized

absence in all these years.

3 Mr. Anuj Aggarwal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submits that in 1991, the petitioner was absent unauthorizedly

for 129 days as he was suffering from jaundice and typhoid during the

said period of his unauthorized absence. In fact this plea raised on behalf

of the petitioner tends to justify the unauthorized absence of the

petitioner in the year 1991. The petitioner, however, does not dispute his

unauthorized absence for 129 days in 1991 and even in the previous

years as mentioned above. In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Sardar Singh

reported as (2004) 7 SCC 574, the unauthorized absence of a conductor

in DTC for a long time amounts to misconduct and is liable to be visited

with the punishment of removal from service.

4 In view of what has been stated above, I do not find any perversity

or illegality in the impugned award that may call for an interference by

this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. This writ petition therefore fails and is hereby

dismissed in limine.

September 10, 2009                                   S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'A'