Dharam Raj vs Delhi Transport Corporation
2011 Latest Caselaw 2811 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of decision: 25th May, 2011.

+                                  W.P.(C) 3634/2011

%        DHARAM RAJ                                          ..... Petitioner
                            Through:      Mr. Anil Mittal & Mr. Prashant
                                          Katara, Advocates.

                                   Versus

         DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION            ..... Respondent
                     Through: Ms. Urvashi Malhotra, Adv. for
                              Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may                       No
         be allowed to see the judgment?

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

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

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The writ petition impugns the award dated 17 th August, 2006 of the

Industrial Adjudicator holding the removal of the petitioner workman from

the services of the respondent DTC to be legal and justified and the

petitioner workman not entitled to any relief. The writ petition has been

preferred after nearly five years of the award. The workman who is

aggrieved from the award is required to act diligently and not expected to

allow such long time to lapse. There is absolutely no explanation

whatsoever for such long delay. On enquiry, the counsel for the petitioner

workman states that the delay was on account of "family circumstances".

Again, no particulars whatsoever have been given.

2. Even otherwise, I find that the petitioner is not serious in the

challenge now made also; except for the award and the order dated 18th

May, 2006 of the Industrial Adjudicator holding the inquiry held preceding

the termination to be valid and proper, nothing else has been filed. The

counsel for the petitioner workman on enquiry fairly admits that the

remaining record of the Industrial Adjudicator has not even been made

available to him. For the petitioner to seek judicial review of the award,

the petitioner is required to make out a case of the findings in the award

being perverse, unreasonable or not borne out from the record. In the

absence of the record, it cannot be even urged that the Industrial

Adjudicator has not appreciated the material on record. It is perhaps for

this reason only that a mere lip service has been paid in the writ petition in

the name of the grounds. Else on a reading of the order dated 18th May,

2006 and the award, no perversity or unreasonableness is found therein.

3. The petitioner workman, while employed with the respondent DTC

as Retainer Crew Driver with effect from 24th June, 1981, was charged

with, having on 15th September, 1990 entered the room of Depot Manager

on the pretext of break down in the bus and having given blows with fist to

the Depot Manager, dragging him to the toilet and giving him deadly blow

due to which his three teeth were broken. The petitioner workman was

thus charged with assault and causing grievous injury.

4. The only ground urged by the petitioner workman before the

Industrial Adjudicator was that since he had been acquitted of the same

charge in the prosecution, the findings of the departmental inquiry on his

guilt were bad.

5. The Industrial Adjudicator has rightly held that the measure of proof

in prosecution and in a departmental inquiry is different. Reference in this

regard may also be made to Daya Swaroop Saxena Vs. P.O., Labour

Court No.VII MANU/DE/1373/2010 and Raj Kumar Sharma Vs. UOI

MANU/DE/1203/2010.

6. The counsel for the petitioner workman has sought to argue that

while in the departmental inquiry only one witness was examined by the

respondent DTC, however in the prosecution several witnesses were

examined; it is contended that when on more evidence guilt has not been

established, the report of Inquiry Officer, finding guilt, on lesser evidence

has to be necessarily perverse. However, without placing the evidence

before this Court, no challenge can be made. As aforesaid, the Industrial

Adjudicator has vide order dated 18th May, 2006 held the inquiry

conducted to be proper and in compliance of the principles of natural

justice. No error with respect to the said order is made out.

7. The Industrial Adjudicator in the award has also held the

punishment to be proportionate finding that the petitioner workman in

twelve years of service had as many as nineteen adverse entries in his

record and had in the past also been dismissed from service.

8. The petitioner has not made out any case for interference.

Dismissed. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) MAY 25, 2011 bs