The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma, recently delivered a significant ruling emphasizing the necessity of leading witness evidence even in ex parte disciplinary inquiries. This judgment, delivered on July 18, 2024, by the bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice R. Mahadevan, highlights procedural lapses that can undermine the fairness of disciplinary proceedings. The court upheld the decisions of both the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court, which had previously set aside the dismissal order of the respondent, Ashok Kumar Sharma, an employee of the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC).
Legal Issues
The case originated from a disciplinary proceeding initiated against Ashok Kumar Sharma, an employee of the Delhi Transport Corporation, following a memorandum of charges issued on December 19, 2006. The charges were investigated by the Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries at the Central Vigilance Commission, appointed as the inquiry authority by DTC’s Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD).
Key Issues:
1. Authority of CMD: The CMD issued a show cause notice on April 15, 2009, and the respondent challenged this, claiming the CMD was neither his appointing nor disciplinary authority.
2. Ex Parte Enquiry Procedure: The disciplinary proceedings were conducted ex parte, and crucially, no witnesses were examined by the prosecution during the enquiry.
3. Application of Mind by the Board: The Tribunal and High Court found that the Board of Directors of DTC failed to independently apply their minds when endorsing the CMDโs recommendation to dismiss the respondent.
Observations and Judgment
The Supreme Court’s judgment underscored two critical procedural deficiencies:
1. Lack of Independent Application of Mind:
The court noted that the Board of Directors of DTC merely gave a “blind approval” to the CMDโs recommendation without a thorough examination of the evidence or an independent application of mind. The agenda circulated among the board members and their resolution did not reflect any objective deliberation on the enquiry report. The court stated:
“The minutes of meeting dated 29th April, 2009, reflect total non-application of mind. The minutes contain not even a whisper of expression of opinion by any of the members of the Board on the merits of the matter.”
2. Absence of Witness Testimony:
The Supreme Court highlighted a significant procedural flaw: the failure to present any witness testimony during the ex parte enquiry. Citing Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others [(2009) 2 SCC 570], the court emphasized that:
“Even in a case of ex parte enquiry, it is essential that the department must lead evidence of witnesses to bring home the charges levelled against the delinquent employee.”
The court found that the enquiry report lacked evidentiary support, stating:
“The enquiry report is based on no evidence whatsoever. No witness was examined on behalf of the prosecution during the course of departmental enquiry.”
The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of both the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court, concluding that the disciplinary action against Ashok Kumar Sharma was vitiated by procedural improprieties. The court dismissed the appeal by Delhi Transport Corporation.
Also Read
Parties Involved
– Appellant: Delhi Transport Corporation
– Respondent: Ashok Kumar Sharma
– Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2014
Legal Representation
– For the Appellant: Ms. Monika Gusain
– Respondent in Person: Ashok Kumar Sharma
