Delhi Transport Corporation vs Shri Jeet Singh (Ex. Driver)
2009 Latest Caselaw 3681 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C.) No. 4161/2001

%                  Date of Decision: 10th September, 2009

# DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
                                                           ..... PETITIONER
!                  Through:   Mr. J.S. Bhasin, Advocate.

                                 VERSUS

$ SHRI JEET SINGH (EX. DRIVER)
                                                       .....RESPONDENT

^                  Through:   Mr. Rakesh Kumar, 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 Delhi Transport Corporation in this writ petition seeks to

challenge an order of the Industrial Adjudicator dated 16.10.2000 in O.P.

No. 263/1992 declining approval under Section 33(2)(b) for removal of

the respondent from its service w.e.f. 06.07.1992.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

3. The petitioner was working as a Driver with Delhi Transport

Corporation and he was served with a charge-sheet dated 06.03.1991 for

remaining absent unauthorizedly for 26 days in December 1990, 22 days

in January 1991 and 27 days in February 1991. After holding a domestic

inquiry against him, the management of Delhi Transport Corporation

decided to remove him from service w.e.f. 06.07.1992. Since at that time

an industrial dispute concerning Delhi Transport Corporation workers'

demand for implementation of the Fourth Pay Commission Report was

pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, the Delhi Transport

Corporation filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) for approval of the

Tribunal of its action for removal of the respondent workman.

4. The Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 06.03.1999 decided the

inquiry issue against the management of Delhi Transport Corporation

since the report of the Inquiry Officer was found perverse. After the

inquiry issue was decided against the management of Delhi Transport

Corporation vide order dated 06.03.1999, ample opportunities were given

to the management of Delhi Transport Corporation to prove the alleged

misconduct against the respondent but despite that, the management

did not produce any evidence to prove the misconduct against the

respondent. The Court below in para 11 of the impugned order has noted

that the case was adjourned for the management evidence to prove the

alleged misconduct against the respondent on various dates, i.e., on

25.01.2000, 30.03.2000, 19.07.2000 and 16.10.2000 but the

management despite that did not produce any evidence to prove the

alleged misconduct against the respondent. For that reason, the

evidence of the management was rightly closed by the Tribunal.

5. In view of what has been stated above, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the approval under Section 33(2)(b) was rightly

declined by the Tribunal below for removal of the respondent from its

service. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any

illegality or perversity in the impugned order that require 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 leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

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