The Delhi High Court has upheld the termination of a Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) driver who was dismissed nearly 40 years ago for unauthorized absence, ruling that a disciplinary inquiry concluded within a single day does not automatically render the proceedings unfair.
A division bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora rejected an appeal filed by the driver’s legal heirs, who continued the legal dispute following his death. The court emphasized that unauthorized leave cannot be excused on sympathetic grounds and that claims of medical absence must be supported by proper evidence.
Addressing the family’s argument that the inquiry was conducted too quickly, the bench stated in its July 3 ruling that while the argument regarding a single-day inquiry appears compelling initially, it must be evaluated based on the specific facts of each case. The court noted that the driver had been given a proper opportunity to defend himself and had not requested additional time to present documents, witnesses, or evidence in his favor.
Decades Of Legal Dispute
The case originated in 1982 when the driver was first appointed by the transport corporation. In August 1987, the DTC issued him a charge sheet for remaining absent without pay for 161 days between January 1 and July 31 of that year.
The employee denied the charges, prompting a departmental inquiry. The proceedings concluded with his removal from service on February 2, 1988.
The driver challenged his termination before a labor court, asserting that his absences were due to his own illness as well as his wife’s health issues. He claimed he had submitted leave applications to depot officials, who subsequently granted him leave without pay.
In 2009, the labor court ruled in favor of the driver, deciding that the inquiry was conducted in haste because it concluded in a single day, and ordered his reinstatement.
The DTC appealed the labor court’s decision before a single-judge bench of the High Court. In April 2010, the single judge reversed the labor court’s order, stating that industrial and commercial sectors cannot tolerate indiscipline or inefficiency, especially when competing globally.
The driver passed away during the subsequent appeal process, leading his legal heirs to file an intra-court appeal to challenge the single judge’s decision.
Arguments And Court Findings
During the appeal, Senior Advocate Arun Bhardwaj, representing the legal heirs, argued that the single judge erred by concluding the driver had received an adequate opportunity to defend himself. He contended that the rapid conclusion of the inquiry on a single day violated the employee’s rights and prevented him from producing his leave records. Bhardwaj added that as a driver, the employee could not be expected to know complex procedural rules or manage record production.
In response, DTC’s counsel, Advocate Avnish Ahlawat, argued that the driver had been given a fair opportunity to prove his innocence but failed to submit any medical certificates or leave applications to justify the 161-day absence. Ahlawat characterized the labor court’s initial ruling as contrary to the evidence on record.
The division bench sided with the corporation, noting that records showed the driver was offered a defense assistant, which he declined. The court also observed that the driver was a habitual absentee who had been penalized twice before for taking excessive leave. Finding no violation of the principles of natural justice, the bench upheld the single judge’s 2010 order.
