Vinod Kumar vs Delhi Transport Corporation
2011 Latest Caselaw 1301 Del

                                                        UNREPORTABLE


*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                              WP (C) No.835/2011


                                         Date of Decision: March 04, 2011


       VINOD KUMAR                               ...... Petitioner
                          through Mr. N.A.Sebastian, Advocate

                     versus


       DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION           ..... Respondent
                     through Mr. J.B.Malik, Advocate

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.     Whether the reporters of local papers 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

REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

This writ-petition has been preferred against the order of the

Labour Court dated December 18, 2006 upholding the removal of the

petitioner from service by the respondent vide its order dated

August 16, 2001 on the ground that he had remained absent from duty

for 72 days without any sanctioned leave.

The petitioner does not dispute that he had remained absent for

the aforesaid period without sanctioned leave. His only submission is

that despite his having remained absent, the Enquiry Officer had not

found him guilty and that the order passed by the Enquiry Officer

WP (C) No.835/2011 Page 1 dated June 26, 2001 was interpolated, in as much as two lines were

subsequently added in the order. Those lines read as under:-

"Conductor has taken leave. Therefore, he is found guilty."

I have gone through the order of the Enquiry Officer dated

June 26, 2001. All that he has stated in the order is that "I have come

to the conclusion that whatever leave delinquent has taken is on

account of the illness of his wife. It is true that his wife is ill. " The

conclusion so arrived at by the Enquiry Officer cannot be interpreted to

mean that he had condoned the absence of the petitioner from duty

without sanctioned leave. He has simply recorded a fact that the

petitioner had taken leave on account of the illness of his wife.

Therefore, to say that the Enquiry Officer has not found him guilty, will

not be the correct way of looking at the order, even if, it is assumed

that the subsequent lines in the order, as alleged by the petitioner,

were added after the Enquiry Officer had given his finding.

Apart from what has been noticed above, I find that the

writ-petition is liable to be dismissed on delay and laches. The

impugned order against the petitioner was passed on

December 18, 2006. It is after five years in the year 2011 that he has

challenged the same. There is no explanation as to why the

writ-petition has been filed after lapse of such a long time.

For the fore-going reasons, there is no merit in the writ-petition.

The same is dismissed.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

MARCH 04, 2011
ka



WP (C) No.835/2011                                                       Page 2