Delhi High Court Upholds DTC Driver’s Removal, Says Employee Cannot Challenge One-Day Enquiry After Refusing Defence Opportunity
Delhi High Court Upholds DTC Driver’s Removal for 161 Days’ Unauthorized Absence, Holds One-Day Enquiry Not Invalid When Employee Declined Defence and Cross-Examination
Facts
The appeal was filed by the legal heirs of Dilbagh Singh, a deceased DTC driver, challenging the Single Judge’s order dated 3 May 2013. The Single Judge had allowed DTC’s writ petition and set aside the Labour Court’s award dated 8 April 2010, which had directed reinstatement of the employee.
Dilbagh Singh was appointed as a driver with Delhi Transport Corporation in 1982. He was issued a charge-sheet on 20 August 1987 for remaining on leave without pay/being absent from duty for 161 days between 1 January 1987 and 31 July 1987. He denied the charge, departmental proceedings were conducted, and after the Enquiry Officer’s report and show-cause notice, he was removed from service.
Before the Labour Court, the employee claimed that he had taken leave due to his own illness and his wife’s illness and had submitted leave applications. DTC denied receiving any such applications and contended that he was a habitual absentee.
Issues
Whether the departmental enquiry was vitiated merely because it was completed on the same day.
Whether the employee was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
Whether leave without pay amounted to sanctioned leave or whether the absence still constituted misconduct.
Whether the Labour Court was justified in directing reinstatement.
Whether the Single Judge rightly set aside the Labour Court’s award.
Appellants’ Arguments
The legal heirs of the employee argued that the Single Judge erred in holding that proper opportunity had been granted during the enquiry.
It was contended that the enquiry was conducted in haste and concluded on the same day, thereby causing prejudice to the employee. According to the appellants, the employee should have been given time to produce leave applications and medical certificates relating to his and his wife’s illness.
It was further argued that the onus should not have been placed on the employee to produce the documents because the records were allegedly in DTC’s custody. The appellants also argued that the employee, being a driver, could not be expected to understand the technical procedure of a departmental enquiry.
They also relied on the fact that the charge mentioned “leave without pay”, which according to them implied that leave had been sanctioned.
Respondent’s Arguments
DTC argued that the employee was given full opportunity in the enquiry. He was asked whether he wanted a defence assistant, but declined. He was also given an opportunity to cross-examine the management witness, but chose not to do so.
DTC submitted that the employee did not ask for any adjournment to produce documents, witnesses, leave applications or medical certificates. Therefore, he could not later contend that the enquiry was unfair.
It was further argued that the Master Attendance Register showed absence for 161 days, and the employee failed to establish that he had sanctioned leave. DTC relied on DTC v. Sardar Singh to argue that mere submission of a leave application, even if assumed, does not mean leave was sanctioned.
Analysis of the Law
The Court held that an enquiry being completed in one day does not automatically make it unfair. The validity of such an enquiry must be examined on the facts of each case.
Where the employee declines the assistance of a defence representative, does not cross-examine the management witness, and does not seek time to produce evidence, the enquiry cannot be faulted merely because it was concluded on the same day.
The Court also held that “leave without pay” does not necessarily mean sanctioned leave. Unauthorized absence may be treated as leave without pay for administrative or service-record purposes, but that does not wipe out misconduct or prevent disciplinary action.
Precedent Analysis
The Court noted that DTC had relied on Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sardar Singh, where the Supreme Court held that mere making of a leave application is not enough; the employee must establish that leave was actually sanctioned. Unauthorized absence, especially habitual absence, can amount to negligence and lack of interest in work.
The appellants relied on Bhagwan Lal Arya v. Commissioner of Police, to argue that absence on medical grounds should not be treated as grave misconduct. However, the Court found that the employee had failed to prove the medical basis of his absence or compliance with the applicable standing orders.
The appellants also relied on Roop Chand v. DTC and Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma, but the Court found no reason to interfere with the Single Judge’s conclusions in the facts of the case.
Court’s Reasoning
The Division Bench found that the Labour Court’s conclusion had no proper basis. The record showed that the employee had been offered the assistance of a defence assistant but declined it. He also refused to cross-examine the management witness and did not seek time to produce documents or evidence.
The Court held that once the employee did not ask for time or attempt to produce evidence, the Enquiry Officer had no option but to proceed with the enquiry.
The Court also noted that the employee had been penalised twice earlier for excessive leave, showing that he was a habitual absentee. Therefore, the Single Judge was justified in holding that the Labour Court had wrongly interfered with the disciplinary action.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s order setting aside the Labour Court’s award of reinstatement. The Court held that the employee had been given proper opportunity in the enquiry, that the enquiry was not vitiated merely because it was completed in one day, and that unauthorized absence treated as leave without pay did not cease to be misconduct.
Case: Dilbagh Singh (Since Deceased) Through Legal Heirs v. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: LPA 662/2013
Judge: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Date: 3 July 2026
Result: Appeal dismissed; Single Judge’s order upheld; Labour Court award of reinstatement set aside.
